Opposition leader and former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s defense requested that she serve her six-year sentence, which the Supreme Court upheld on Tuesday, under house arrest. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court gave her until Wednesday, June 18, to appear in court and be taken into custody.

The sentence also included a lifelong ban on holding public office, effectively barring her from running for a seat in the Buenos Aires province lower chamber, as she had announced.

The day after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Kirchner’s defense argued that Kirchner should serve the sentence in the apartment of her daughter, Florencia Kirchner, in Buenos Aires even while the court discusses it. The former president remains at that location as a large group of her supporters continue to demonstrate outside.

The request, authored by lawyers Carlos Alberto Beraldi and Ary Rubén Llernovoy, cites her age, past presidency, and the prior assassination attempt against Kirchner as justification.

Kirchner’s defense cited institutional security concerns surrounding former presidents due to access to sensitive and confidential information related to national security, sovereignty, and international relations. They mentioned a Security Ministry resolution emphasizing the need to guarantee the safety of former presidents and pointed to the attempted assassination of Kirchner in 2021.

They said that the masterminds remain at large and may have connections to high-ranking officials, including Security Minister Patricia Bullrich. “One of the suspects has a direct relationship with the person who is currently the head of the Nation’s Security Ministry in whose orbit the Federal Penitentiary Service operates,” the document said.

They also argued that Kirchner is over 70 years old, the minimum requirement for house arrest in Argentina, and that she has consistently cooperated with the judicial process.This included when traveling abroad, where the 72-year-old has always obtained prior authorization. They said that her permanent security detail further avoids any flight risk, making an electronic ankle monitor unnecessary.

The defense also requested a swift resolution of the request and provisional house arrest pending the final decision, arguing that keeping her in prison before a decision is unjustified given her existing security detail. 

“As already explained, an eventual denial of this motion will have to violate basic principles and guarantees recognized in the National Constitution and in the International Human Rights Treaties incorporated into its text,” the request said.

“In the unlikely event that a decision adverse to our petition is adopted, we expressly reserve the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (…) and to the competent international human rights organizations.”