The Court of Cassation confirmed the dismissal of Santiago Caputo in the complaint against Manes.

The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation confirmed the dismissal of presidential advisor Santiago Caputo in the complaint filed by former radical and Kirchnerist deputy Facundo Manes, who had attempted to establish a supposed episode of “political violence” following an exchange that occurred during the Opening of Ordinary Sessions of Congress in March 2025.

Chamber IV of the country’s highest criminal court rejected the appeal brought by Manes and agreed that the reported events did not constitute any crime. For judges Mariano Borinsky, Gustavo Hornos, and Javier Carbajo, everything occurred within the framework of a heated political discussion and did not go beyond an exaggerated verbal exchange due to the radical's acting.

Borinsky stated that it was a matter of expressions made “in the heat of a verbal altercation” and resulting from “a burst of anger, frustration, or nervousness,” thus dismissing the existence of legally relevant threats. The magistrate also clarified that the ruling did not deny Manes' subjective and imaginative perception, although he emphasized that this was not enough to constitute a crime.

Hornos, for his part, pointed out that the episode should be understood within “the controversies inherent to political discussion” and reminded that Congress is precisely a space for confrontation and debate between ideologically opposing sectors. Carbajo also supported this position and voted to reject the former legislator's claim.

The neurosurgeon claimed that Santiago Caputo had intimidated him with gestures from one of the balconies and then confronted him in the hallways of Congress, even alleging supposed “short punches” that, coincidentally, were never recorded by any camera.

The account was used by opposition leaders to try to establish a narrative of political persecution and “institutional violence” against the government of Javier Milei, at a time when the ruling party was facing a strong parliamentary dispute with sectors of radicalism and Kirchnerism.

However, neither the Prosecutor's Office nor the Justice found minimal elements to support the accusation. The Public Prosecutor's Office determined in both instances that no crime had occurred, a criterion that Cassation ultimately confirmed.

With this judicial decision, a case that many believed was nothing more than an attempt at political victimization and exaggerated opposition theatrics to fuel narratives about a supposed “authoritarian drift” of the government was definitively closed, thus feeding the dictatorial fantasies of the left.