The Appeals Chamber Revokes the Suspension
The Chamber of Appeals and Guarantees in Criminal Matters of Lomas de Zamora, through its Division 1, revoked the precautionary measure that had suspended for 60 days the application of national Law 27.801 in Buenos Aires province. The decision was reached after the Public Prosecutor's Office appealed the resolution issued on September 7 by Marta Pascual, head of Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Court No. 2 of that judicial district. The judges Miguel Carlos Navascués and Miguel María Alberdi signed the ruling.[S1][S2][S3][S4]
The suspension had been issued in a preventive and collective habeas corpus filed by the civil association No Seas Pavote, a member of the Federación Familia Grande Hogar de Cristo. The original filing warned about the lack of material and institutional conditions to implement the new regime, especially given the expansion of the universe of adolescents who could fall under the legislation. Law 27.801 incorporates 14- and 15-year-olds and modifies, among other aspects, the rules applicable to offenses and penalty scales.[S1][S2][S4]
The Arguments of the Ruling
The chamber held that a general suspension of Law 27.801 alters Argentina's system of constitutional review, which requires judges to intervene in concrete cases. It stated that a precautionary measure with general scope would amount to assuming an attribution proper to a final judgment, a power that, according to the court, the National Constitution does not grant to any judge. The judges also recalled that laws approved through constitutional mechanisms enjoy a presumption of legitimacy and that setting them aside requires constitutional or conventionality review in a specific case.[S1][S2][S5]
The ruling stressed that it is not for the judiciary to evaluate the wisdom of statutes or to define criminal policies, since that is a matter reserved to the Legislative Branch. It also cited the Supreme Court's doctrine on the separation of powers, referring to the precedent Thomas, Enrique c/ E.N.A. s/ amparo, linked to the media law, in which the highest court warned that no Argentine judge has the authority to suspend a law with general effects, not even as a precautionary measure.[S1][S2][S5]
The Situation of Detained Youth
The chamber clarified that revoking the habeas corpus does not mean ignoring the conditions of adolescents detained in judicial proceedings in Buenos Aires province. It stated that if a particular situation could worsen a young person's confinement conditions, the judge who has the adolescent at their disposal must order the urgent measures that correspond within the current legal framework. That judge must also request from the administration the resources needed to guarantee compliance with constitutional and conventional standards.[S1][S5]
The precautionary measure had been limited to adolescents already deprived of liberty in Buenos Aires territory, but the filing also included young people who might be apprehended, subjected to judicial process, and eventually detained under the new legal framework. The prosecutor in the case, Hernán Ceruti, argued that habeas corpus requires a concrete threat to ambulatory freedom or to the conditions in which it is exercised, and cannot be based exclusively on a future eventuality whose occurrence has not been demonstrated.[S1][S4]
The Controversy and the New Regime
Judge Pascual had based her decision on the material, institutional, and professional conditions of Buenos Aires province's detention facilities. She considered that Law 27.801 expands the universe of punishable adolescents by incorporating 14- and 15-year-olds, eliminating the exclusion of minor offenses, and suppressing the application of reduced penalty scales. She warned that the potential increase in detained persons could cause serious and imminent harm to fundamental rights if there were insufficient resources to receive them, and she held that it was not necessary to wait for the violation to materialize before adopting a protective measure.[S1][S2]
The decision had sparked strong controversy, leading the civil association Usina de Justicia to file a complaint against the judge for the alleged crimes of functional usurpation and abuse of authority. The entity considers that suspending a criminal law passed by Congress could exceed the court's attributions and affect the separation of powers. Several requests for impeachment were also formalized before the Jury of Magistrates and Officials to seek her removal for poor performance and abuse of authority.[S1]
The new legislation was passed on February 27, 2026, published on March 9, and established its entry into force 180 days later. The norm repealed the previous regime of Law 22.278 and set a new penal scheme for adolescents from age 14 until before turning 18.[S3]
