The excessive duration that the trial in the case of the bribery notebooks promises to have and the fact that it will be carried out by Zoom and not in person worries the highest authorities of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court of Justice, the Council of the Judiciary and the Chamber of Criminal Cassation.
Such is the delicacy of the issue, that the Council of the Judiciary informed the judges of the federal oral court No. 7 that next week, between November 10 and 15, a new courtroom for 200 people will be inaugurated in the Comodoro Py 2002 building, which can accommodate the 87 defendants and their lawyers, the prosecution and the complaints, sources from the Council of the Judiciary told THE NATION.
This is the remodeling of the AMIA Courtroom, which was carried out for the implementation of the new adversarial system, which requires oral hearings.
There, in 2013, the first oral and public trial was held for the attack on the AMIAwith dozens of defendants, lawyers and plaintiffs.
It has a large platform, and a place where lawyers and clients are placed on parallel benches on the right side of the judges, and prosecutors and plaintiffs are placed on the left side.
In addition, it has a seating area on the ground floor, enough to accommodate more than 50 people, and the same number in a pullman located on the upper floor of the room, as if it were a theater.
The room is also equipped with television cameras, equipment for remote transmission, monitors and tools to reproduce videos, photographs and documents that may be evidence of the trial.
Two months ago, the president of the court, Enrique Mendez Signoriraised concerns with the authorities of the Judicial Council and the Court about the lack of physical space to carry out the process and reported that the trial was going to be held by zoom, virtually and that only one hearing was going to take place per week.
Méndez Signori’s decision did not go down well in the courts. The prosecutor’s office did not like it either. Fabiana Leonnor to many of the defenders, who do not want their clients to testify over Zoom, away from the judges.
There were even formal proposals that reached the Federal Court of Cassation, which last August questioned whether the trial would be held by Zoom and only once a week.
The complaints were presented by the president of the court, Daniel Petroneand by his colleague Diego Barroetaveñaalso advisor to the judiciary representing the judges.
What the Chamber argued is that the weekly virtual hearings in the notebooks case could affect the right of defense.
The use of Zoom in the first hearing generated unusual scenes, such as one of the accused, Alberto Padoán, from the Vicentin company, following the trial lying in his bed, with someone who appeared to be a woman at his side. The same businessman, dressed in pajamas, then appeared at the connection with a tub of ice cream.
Something similar happened with the former Kirchnerist minister Julio De Vidowho in the middle of the audience decided to have lunch, without discretion, eating the food by the spoonful while the camera took him in close-up.
The controversy over the trial arose after a formal claim from the accused businessman Gabriel Romero, who objected to the virtual format; Although his appeal was rejected, Cassation asked to preserve procedural guarantees, especially physical presence.
Judges Barroetaveña, Petrone and Gustavo Hornos agreed that the complexity of the case (more than 600 witnesses and 87 defendants, including Cristina Kirchner) should not weaken fundamental rights of an oral and public trial.
They suggested increasing the frequency of hearings to avoid delays due to the decision of TOF 7 to hold weekly virtual sessions on Thursdays via Zoom.
Finally the judges relaxed a bit and scheduled a weekly hearing until the end of the year and then, starting March 3, 2026, two weekly hearings, on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
What they would like to see in the Palace of Justice and in the Judicial Council are in-person hearings every day.
The Cassation judges suggested reviewing the debate schedule to avoid delays. Barroetaveña warned that virtuality could unnecessarily extend the process, while Petrone stressed that digital platforms must guarantee defense without affecting their rights.
Cassation suggested considering an increase in the frequency of weekly hearings to speed up the trial and avoid delays in a process that could last years.
