Cristina Kirchner, on the eve of a new oral trial: confirmed her lawsuit for the historical documents found at her home

However, the former president should not give explanations during an oral proceedings to conceal a robbery – this was the accusation of Judge Claudio Bonadio – but because non-compliance with the duties of a public official.

At the discretion of the chambermaids Martín Irurzun and Leopoldo Brugliathe senator acceded to these documents by virtue of the position he held as head of the executive power and, as such, he had to declare it, explained judicial sources to Infobae. After the confirmation of the lawsuit, the former president was on the verge of a new oral trial.

These documents were found during searches carried out last August at the home of Cristina Kirchner, as part of the notebook business and after the approval of proceedings by the National Senate.

In the residence of El Calafate, the judge seized elements at the origin of several lawsuits: a presidential staff who had not belonged to Kirchner, information documents, as well as a letter from San Martín and Yrigoyen's criminal record, annotated from 1906 to 1910-. For each finding, a different cause has been opened.

Bonadio has touched the cause of historical documents. For the judge, Cristina Kirchner knew the origin of these documents and did not denounce them. "It is impossible to think that Mrs. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a lawyer, former deputy, national senator and former president of the country for two periods, was unaware that she had in her hands two instruments of transcendental historical importance which, in as such, constitute a cultural heritage of Argentina or the Republic of Chile, "said the judge in the resolution." An unidentified person removed these items and the accused received them, keeping them in their possession until they were removed by the police. "

The Federal Chamber badyzed the arguments and decided to confirm the decision, but for another crime. He argued that there was no certainty that the documents had been stolen, as evidenced by the consultations conducted because there was no way to compare the same.

The decision, however, stated: "There is no doubt that the historical documents examined, by their very nature, are part of history and, as such, are considered by law to be the cultural heritage of society and should not be kept in isolation. reserve for the personal usufruct."

"Therefore, after its reception, it was not only inevitable but inevitable that Fernandez de Kirchner informs the General Archives of the Nation of their possession, since it was an express obligation of the law of which ignorance can not claim or rely on an interpretation. forced of its forecasts attentive to the normative clarity on the point ", he maintained.

The resolution he accepted Infobae He also warned: "Even if – as claimed by the defense – Fernandez de Kirchner has neither suspected nor suspected that the documents presented to him by the President of the Russian Federation and by a partner of the deceased priest had an illegal origin, it is sufficiently accredited so that the importance and the historical value of the examined pieces were certainly circumstances known for the imputed: it is enough to do it with the transcendence which it attributed to the received gifts ".

The decision emphasized: "The adoption of Law No. 25 188 on Ethics in the Exercise of Public Service and, in particular, Article 18 – whose delay in the implementation of its provisions renders the regulation inapplicable ".

He pointed out that "it is clear that the provisions of Law 15.930 expressly provided in Article 19 that" … historical documents held by individuals must be reported by their owners to the General Archives. of the nation or the general record of the corresponding province, within one year from the enactment of this Act, to become aware of its existence and to be included in the inventory referred to in paragraph (f) of Article 2 ".

"According to all that has been said, there is no doubt that historical documents, examined by their nature,
they are part of history and, as such, are legally considered as the cultural heritage of society and should not be kept secretly
the personal usufruct. Therefore, after its reception, it was not only inevitable but inevitable that Fernandez de Kirchner inform the archives.
General of the Nation in his possession, as it was an express obligation of the
law whose ignorance can not successfully claim or rely on a forced interpretation of their predictions to listen to the normative clarity on the subject, "it was argued.