Judges of Argentina’s Federal Criminal Court of Cassation during a session reviewing criminal appeals.
Argentina’s Federal Criminal Court of Cassation (Chamber II) has annulled a ruling that upheld the denial of release for a woman prosecuted for drug transportation and ordered a new decision applying a comprehensive gender and intersectional approach. The case, Colque Castro s/ legajo de casación (reg. 294/25), was sent back to the Federal Court of Appeals in Mar del Plata for a fresh ruling consistent with the standards cited by Cassation.
The decision—adopted by majority—set aside the appellate ruling that had kept the defendant under preventive coercive measures in the form of house arrest. In the lead vote, Judge Alejandro Slokar said the reviewing court failed to conduct a thorough, up-to-date assessment of the defendant’s personal circumstances, including factors linked to vulnerability.
Court says custody decisions must weigh caregiving, health, and third-party harm
Cassation held that the challenged ruling did not adequately address constitutional and international human-rights standards on women’s rights, emphasizing Argentina’s obligation to apply a gender perspective under instruments such as CEDAW and the Inter-American Convention of Belém do Pará.
The court highlighted the defendant’s circumstances as described in the file: she is the mother of three minor children, including one child with quadriplegia requiring permanent assistance, and she reportedly has a medical history that requires ongoing follow-up. The ruling also noted that she is described as the family’s sole economic provider.
According to the majority, these factors required a concrete evaluation of potential harm to third parties—especially children—and the so-called “symbiotic harms” linked to detention, meaning the reciprocal effects that deprivation of liberty can generate within a family unit.
Cassation also criticized the reasoning used to justify procedural risks, stating that the annulled decision did not sufficiently demonstrate current, concrete risks warranting the restriction of liberty. In particular, the court said there was no integrated assessment of overlapping vulnerabilities—gender, poverty, health, and caregiving responsibilities—when weighing necessity and proportionality.
One judge dissented, arguing that procedural risks had been properly evaluated and that the measure in place (pretrial detention under house arrest) remained proportional at the early stage of the case. The majority, however, granted the defense appeal, annulled the ruling, and remitted the matter for a new decision.
