Gabriel Morini 
Last week was dominated by collective hysteria over the ruling in the Vialidad case, which would uphold Cristina Kirchner’s sentence to six years in prison and a lifelong ban from public office. This week will deepen that tension, but everything remains uncertain: no one really knows when it will happen.
The Supreme Court did what it usually does in high-voltage political cases: it went silent and shrouded itself in secrecy.
There have been a couple of mentions of the case in private meetings over the last two weeks. There were also deliberate maneuvers to send the Kirchnerist camp into a panic. Some claimed that the court would seal the fate of the former president last Thursday, perhaps unaware that the justices’ meeting had taken place on Tuesday, and the agenda had been closed since Monday night. Vialidad wasn’t on it.
The current scenario is as follows: the Supreme Court has been studying the Vialidad case for weeks and is aiming to issue a ruling before the provincial and national elections, as a sign it is not afraid of issuing a politically consequential decision during an electoral season. There are precedents suggesting this approach — a break from past court compositions that avoided interfering with the electoral calendar.
Before a ‘patriotic date’
High-level judicial sources confirmed to the Herald’s sister title, Ámbito, that the court aims to issue a ruling before a “patriotic date” and ahead of the July 19 deadline for registering candidacies for Buenos Aires Province elections. This also aligns with the start of the winter judicial recess.
Based on its own precedents, it is very unlikely the Court will accept the appeal and overturn the convictions in favor of the defense. It is more inclined to uphold the trial and appeals court decisions through one of several mechanisms, including the use of Article 280, which allows the court to reject appeals without explanation. This would sideline the serious legal inconsistencies that have plagued the case from the beginning and only deepened at each judicial level.
The same judicial sources also said that the appeals submitted by Kirchner’s defense are not particularly complex and will not require a detailed response. They pointed to what happened on May 29 in the so-called “K Money Trail” case, where an appeal objecting to the involvement of a pro-Macri NGO in the appeals process was dismissed. A separate issue will be evaluating the future implications of allowing any entity to intervene in politically charged cases in the appeals court — a potentially double-edged precedent.
Vialidad Case: Signs on the horizon
What happened with Lázaro Báez in that case is directly connected to Vialidad. That outcome forewarned the Kirchnerist camp not to expect good news. But it’s worth noting that the current Supreme Court does not require its rulings to be signed on official meeting days — Tuesdays or Thursdays (in case of holiday weeks). Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti can sign digitally, from anywhere in the country, on any day.
On the fourth floor of the Supreme Court building, it’s acknowledged that media pressure has been increasing, but it hasn’t been matched by political pressure. There were no emissaries bearing messages, as in past high-profile cases close to elections. However, in the business world, there was significant interest in the outcome, with Cristina Kirchner’s political viability and electoral support causing concern in some powerful sectors. Some attempted to gather intelligence out of fear that the result might favor the former president.
Contingent scenarios are currently under consideration. One possibility is that Rosenkrantz is reviewing whether to accept the prosecutor’s appeal asking for the charge of criminal association to be incorporated — as demanded by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and backed by Attorney General Eduardo Casal — opening up another potential legal path.
This is still speculation, but it would require using the system for drawing substitute judges. “It’s in constant motion and unstoppable,” sources told Ámbito, explaining that the process is monitored by more than a dozen people and filmed from every angle to ensure there are no “hot balls.”
If that happens, it could delay the ruling — but not beyond the deadline for candidacies. All indications suggest that, under these conditions, Cristina Kirchner would be unable to run in the provincial elections as previously announced.
The Supreme Court is well aware that the Vialidad ruling will provoke a political response — namely, calls to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, which is already being discussed. It seems unbothered by the fact that both the ruling party and the opposition share the same secondary reading: that the court, in its minimal configuration, can advance its current agenda, which has focused on punishing a segment of public officials implicated in alleged corruption cases.
Kirchner continues her agenda
Privately, the former president is the epitome of fed up. She insists she is not willing to be taken hostage by the court due to an extended period of indecision, but also doesn’t want events to accelerate too quickly. She wonders how her political capital with the Supreme Court was exhausted after she helped block some of the candidates proposed by Javier Milei. For that reason, the immediate effect of the ruling will be to lay the groundwork for expanding the court — something they are already factoring into their calculations.
She has not yet decided where she would live if granted house arrest, which would require approval from Federal Oral Court No. 2. One possibility is her downtown apartment in the Constitución neighborhood. Kirchner envisions continuing her political agenda and adapting to restrictions without reducing her public activity.
Just in case, this Monday, the Instituto Patria has called a meeting with broad sectors of Peronism, lawmakers, and union representatives — all of whom are on alert. It’s a bid to generate critical mass despite a total lack of information about when events will unfold.
Although she was not enthusiastic about a candidacy in the Third Electoral Section of Buenos Aires Province, her strategy was to retain enough power to demonstrate strong electoral results and carry that leverage into the national elections, asserting leadership of the PJ. She will pursue that goal up until the Court’s decision is made public. Full-time campaigning and events — that’s what her inner circle says.
In a three-pronged reading of the situation, one aspect of the potential conviction might actually benefit her: it would preserve her electoral record, turn her disqualification into legend, and position her as a central, indispensable figure. That’s how they imagine a post-ruling scenario in which the power map in the main opposition stronghold is completely reshaped.
