Former President Mauricio Macri appealed the ban on leaving the country imposed by the federal judge of Dolores Martín Bava in the case of alleged illegal spying on relatives of the sailors who died in the sinking of the submarine ARA San Juan. He appointed Pablo Lanusse as his lawyer and declared his “absolute innocence” in the investigation.
After being summoned to the investigation, the defense of the ex-president presented a brief in which he stated, on behalf of Macri: “After the noise generated by your decision on October 1, 2021, where he acknowledged that he did not know my address, this Court was only able to comply with your duty to communicate what was resolved therein regarding me on the 6th of the same month and year ”.
Macri clarified: “Despite being outside the country as it was and is publicly known, I come in due time and form to present myself in the proceedings, without this meaning recognizing or consenting to the Judge the guarantees conferred by articles 18 of the Constitution National and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights ”. The founder of the PRO denied the accusations in the case: “I do so convinced of my absolute innocence in the alleged facts that are intended to be attributed to me and as a derivation of my respect and subjection to the institutions of the Republic.”
Regarding the ban on leaving the country, the former president appealed the measure and asked Judge Bava to apply the suspensive effect, that is, not to take effect until it is resolved in higher appeal instances. Macri considered: “It lacks any type of foundation and therefore annihilates and violates the rights, principles and guarantees of defense in court, due process, minimal state intervention, free movement and transit, principle of innocence, proportionality and reasonableness.”
The former head of the Buenos Aires government considered that the judge “omitted all grounds that explain the reasons and the logical process that led him to order” his ban on leaving the country. He said that he does not speak of “a stereotyped or an apparent foundation” and that there is “an absolute absence of argumentation and reasons that allow reconstructing the cognitive process that led the Magistrate to restrict” his freedom.