On the beginning of this week, the Supreme Court of Justice decided to analyze the orders of the defenses in the context of the cause for irregularities in the public work known as “highways”, which could cause a delay in the beginning of the first oral trial against the Former President Cristina Kirchner, scheduled for next May 21. Judges Ricardo Lorenzetti, Horacio Rosatti, Juan Carlos Maqueda and Elena Highton signed a resolution in which their criminal secretary was instructed to ask for the main body of the case and to study it. In this line is just pronounced Jorge Gorini, President of TOF N ° 2 in charge of the cause in question: “The trial actually has a start date for Tuesday, May 21, the date that was not yet suspended, the trial at the moment was not suspended. I cannot take for granted what was not done, the judgement to this day is kept. ”
In dialogue with the network, the magistrate stated that he was “forwarding at the court’s request the main cause for the resolution of nine resources under study by the Supreme Court. In that picture of situation we are. ” “The trial today is not lifted. It could not develop without the dossier materially in the court, could not initiate a judgement with the reading of a requirement that I have neither to refer to fojas that are not, “detailed Gorini. In this sense it marked that the file sends it “in the course of the morning”, while it pointed out that in the same one they are present “more than 50 bodies, 13 imputed, 160 witnesses, 52 public works questioned”. “This trial was scheduled to begin on 26 February this year and due to very unfortunate circumstances is that it was extended to May 21. I understand that the beginning of the debate is conditioned to what the court solves. Just as we are so far, the date is maintained unless the court has solved any measure that involves prolonging the date, “argues Gorini. “The court undoubtedly considers it essential to resolve some of these questions for the health of due process, so that the trial does not suffer prejudice in its evolution, I have no reason to think differently,” the magistrate concluded.
