The governor of Chubut, Ignacio Torres, questioned decisions of sectors of the Justice and demanded an end to what he called an ideologized guarantee system. According to his argument, certain judicial criteria benefit convicted or detained individuals and sideline the attention to victims, an interpretation he presented in political terms and without announcing a specific regulatory project.
Torres mentioned as an example the difficulties that, in his view, the Government faced in withdrawing cell phones from inmates in prisons and preventing telephone scams. He also criticized judicial measures related to food in detention facilities. The conditions of confinement and communication restrictions are subject to regulations and judicial control, even when the Executive disagrees with specific rulings.
The president also recalled a habeas corpus that, according to his account, allowed an inmate considered dangerous to have in-person meetings with a psychologist because he rejected the virtual modality. He stated that this person later attempted an escape. The information released does not identify the file, the full resolution, or the legal reasons evaluated by the court.
In his statements, Torres requested that security policies place the victims at the center and argued that detainees should not be treated as if they occupy that place. The wording brings together different procedural situations: a convicted person and a person under preventive detention do not have the same legal status, and any state response must respect the applicable constitutional guarantees.
The governor used the expression “purge the Justice system” to call for a change in the approach that he attributes to some judges. He did not specify whether he is proposing legal reforms, disciplinary procedures, changes in appointments, or appeals against certain rulings. Any intervention regarding judges requires defined powers and procedures, as well as respect for the independence of the Judiciary.
For now, the intervention sets a hard political stance on security, victims, and prison conditions. It does not constitute an approved reform nor does it identify magistrates subject to disciplinary proceedings. The real scope will depend on the Executive transforming the criticism into concrete, verifiable, and public initiatives and on these being addressed by the competent bodies with the corresponding institutional guarantees.
