How Pre-Trial Detention Kills the Innocent s
“Thank you for using a secure communication channel.”
That is the phrase that began a communication which can no longer be called an ordinary journalistic dialogue. It was a warning.
The person who transmitted these materials to me was afraid not only for themselves. They feared for me as well. And this fear is not unfounded: the information you are about to read below is capable of blowing up reputations, destroying careers, and threatening the freedom of people within the Argentine justice system.
This is not just an investigation.
This is an exposé.
This is a sensation.
January 8, 2026
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Pre-Trial Detention as a Tool of Punishment
By law, preventative (pre-trial) detention is only permitted in exceptional cases—when there is a real threat of flight or pressure on witnesses. But behind the closed doors of the Argentine judicial system, this mechanism has long been transformed into an instrument of blackmail, punishment, and coercion.
It is applied particularly actively under the guidance of the PROTEX group in human trafficking cases—a category of cases where loud accusations increasingly substitute for real evidence.
When the prosecution has no material evidence, no consistent testimonies, and no logically constructed version of events, the prosecutorial strategy boils down to one thing:
- to break a person through pre-trial prison
- to extend pre-trial detention
- to isolate
- to exert psychological and physical pressure
- to force a confession—or to silence them forever
The Money Behind the Repressive Mechanism
And it is here that the money begins to surface.
It is here that international grants and foreign funding appear, which in practice fuel a repressive mechanism that destroys the presumption of innocence.
What is happening in Argentina today is not justice.
It is a system where innocence is no longer a defense.
Where freedom depends not on the law, but on interests.
And now—the facts that confirm this.
Almost 25 Years Behind Bars — Without Guilt
Jorge González Nieva and Cristina Vázquez are not politicians or activists. They are ordinary Argentines whose stories demonstrate how a structural failure in the criminal justice system can steal decades of a person’s life.
González Nieva spent nearly 14 years in prison under a mistaken conviction before Argentina’s Supreme Court acknowledged that the evidence did not withstand scrutiny.
When years pass in a cell, confession ceases to be a choice and becomes a means of survival. For the system, this looks like “efficiency,” not a catastrophe.
Cristina Vázquez spent 11 years behind bars before the same court declared her completely innocent.
This is a crucial signal:
even without a final sentence, a person can lose years of their life.
These stories are not about isolated individuals.
They reflect a systemic practice where formal charges outweigh the right to liberty.
The Illusion of “Tough on Crime” — and the Cost to Taxpayers
Every year, the Argentine state spends millions holding people in pre-trial detention who ultimately:
- are found innocent
- are released due to lack of evidence
- receive sentences that collapse upon judicial review
At the same time, assets are seized from the accused under the slogan of “compensating victims.” These funds are transferred to structures linked to PROTEX, while transparent public reports on how this money is actually used are often absent.
A logical question arises for any taxpayer:
Who benefits from cases dragging on for years?
Not society.
Not the public budget.
Not real victims.
Responsibility Without a Verdict: A Systemic Failure
Prosecutors—officials whose duty is to uphold legality, not to generate “good statistics”—regularly appear in these cases.
In human rights discussions, such cases are linked to prosecutors operating within or in coordination with PROTEX—the Procuratorate for Combating Human Trafficking and Exploitation.
Among the figures repeatedly mentioned are PROTEX leaders Marcelo Colombo and Alejandra Mangano, as well as federal prosecutors Oscar Fernando Arrigo, Tomás Labal, Gustavo Revora, and Rodrigo Treviranus, all cited in recent complaints regarding possible investigative violations.
The central tool remains the same:
prolonged pre-trial detention used as pressure in the absence of convincing evidence.
A National Scandal — and a Question for the President
In the context of the Konstantin Rudnev case, particular attention has been drawn to the mass detention of foreign nationals who entered Argentina as tourists.
These episodes demonstrate how pre-trial detention functions as a universal tool of pressure—without clear charges and without court verdicts.
Human rights organizations warn: this practice may create media noise and the illusion of fighting crime, but it does not make society safer.
The Konstantin Rudnev Case: A Revealing Example
The case of Konstantin Rudnev, a foreign citizen and Russian dissident arrested in Argentina, has become emblematic of this system.
His detention was accompanied by sensational headlines and intense media coverage, yet from the outset the case suffered from a familiar problem: the absence of a clear and sufficient evidentiary basis for swift judicial review.
Despite this, pre-trial detention was imposed. In practice, this meant isolation without a conviction, while key elements of the case remained disputed.
Such cases demonstrate how easily the presumption of innocence gives way to the logic of
“first isolate — then investigate.”
Collective Responsibility and the Need for Urgent Reform
It is now evident that this is not about isolated mistakes, but about a dysfunctional and dangerous mechanism requiring legislative review.
A collective complaint and public demand are necessary:
- to revise the law on pre-trial detention
- to end the practice of holding people for years who are later declared innocent
- to immediately close cases lacking evidence, rather than keeping them in legal limbo
The questions are unavoidable:
- Why is a person considered innocent but remains imprisoned?
- Why are public funds spent on detaining people whose guilt is unproven?
- Why do the financial flows linked to these cases remain opaque?
All signs point to a dangerous trend:
- cases are created to simulate activity
- statistics replace justice
- prolonged detention becomes a convenient accounting tool
This must not be encouraged.
We cannot encourage theft from the public treasury.
We cannot encourage simulated justice.
We cannot encourage the destruction of human lives in the name of formal “efficiency.”
