Justice toughens Cristina Kirchner's visiting regime after economists' photo

The Federal Oral Tribunal 2 decided to restrict visits to former President Cristina Kirchner during her house arrest, deeming the meeting with nine economists on November 17 a provocation. The judges will impose limits on the number of visitors and weekly visits. This measure follows the photo shared by Kirchner on social media.

The Federal Oral Tribunal 2 (TOF 2), composed of judges Jorge Gorini, Andrés Basso, and Gustavo Giménez Uriburu, unanimously agreed to toughen the visiting regime for Cristina Kirchner, who is serving house arrest at her apartment on San José 1111 in Buenos Aires. The decision was made on November 18, 2025, one day after the meeting with nine economists on Monday the 17th, which was Militant Day.

Judicial sources stated that the magistrates viewed the incident as a 'deliberate provocation', as the former president posed for a photo with the group and shared it on her X account (formerly Twitter). In the post, Kirchner explained: 'On Militant Day, we received at San José 1111 a group of economists who, representing more than 80 professionals, delivered and presented considerations and proposals on a national economic model of productive and federal growth for the 21st century'. She added that the over 400-page document, prepared over 45 sessions by Justicialist Party commissions, is 'an open roadmap for debate and action'.

The original regime, set in June 2025, allowed access without permission only for family, police custody, doctors, and lawyers. Any other person needed Judge Gorini's approval. The economists submitted individual requests, so the group intent went unnoticed. The new scheme now limits visits to a maximum of three or four people at a time and one or two per week. Additionally, Kirchner will be notified for possible non-compliance.

This measure aims for stricter oversight following the scandal. The TOF 2 monitors compliance with the house arrest conditions for the former president, convicted in the Vialidad case.

This website uses cookies

We use cookies for analytics to improve our site. Read our privacy policy for more information.
Decline