On 10 June 2025, Argentina’s Supreme Court confirmed the sentence of six years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding public office against Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, former President of the Republic and current head of the country’s main opposition party. The decision was issued just one week after she publicly announced her legislative candidacy, and has been widely described by multiple actors as an act of political proscription.
The ruling stems from a highly controversial judicial case for alleged corruption in the awarding of public works (“Causa Vialidad”) marked by numerous procedural irregularities, including the absence of conclusive evidence (as confirmed by expert reports), violations of due process, and the application of Article 280 of the Procedural Code—which allows extraordinary appeals to be dismissed without substantive review or legal justification.
The ruling triggered immediate reactions from trade union confederations CGT and CTA, social movements, human rights organizations, and political leaders, all denouncing its punitive and politically motivated nature. Demonstrations in defense of democracy took place spontaneously in several parts of the country, including protests in front of the Supreme Court.
Fernández de Kirchner’s legal team has initiated international legal actions. A submission has already been filed before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and an additional appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has been announced, though not yet formally filed.
This event cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of government actions that directly affect democratic memory and political opposition in Argentina. These include: the renaming of the Kirchner Cultural Center, removal of the name “Néstor Kirchner” from a national gas pipeline project, and the eviction and arrest of opposition figures at the Juan Domingo Perón Institute.
In light of these developments and the ongoing national election calendar, many sectors warn that this case sets a structural precedent threatening democratic environment and to the fundamental rights of political participation.