On Aconcagua Radio, criminal lawyer Daniel Romero discusses the conditions of house arrest.

What does house arrest really entail? How far can a convicted person who enjoys this benefit move? What controls are in place, and what happens when they fail? These questions gained relevance following cases that became public in Mendoza, such as the murder in Guaymallén, where the defendant was at home with three other accomplices, or the circulation of images of convicted individuals walking through the neighborhood or receiving visitors. To shed light on these issues, theAconcagua Radio team consulted criminal lawyer Daniel Romero, who has clients who have experienced this situation.

Romero explained that the Argentine legal system guarantees the presumption of innocence until a final judgment is issued. Within this framework, and depending on the circumstances of the case, a defendant may receive the benefit of house arrest or even full freedom. The same applies to those who have already been convicted and meet certain requirements.

"This house arrest can be granted before or after a conviction, but it is always subject to rules of conduct," the lawyer emphasized.

One of the most common questions revolves around what someone can do inside their home under this regime. According to Romero, if the judge doesn't impose specific restrictions, the convicted person can lead a domestic life fairly similar to their normal life.

"He can receive visits and hold meetings. The only limitations are not leaving his home and not violating rules of coexistence or committing violations that could lead to the revocation of the benefit," he explained. This point is particularly controversial, as these situations often generate social outrage or the condemnation of the victims' families.

"Let's remember the case of Julieta Silva in San Rafael, who organized get-togethers with friends and posted dancing videos while serving her sentence under house arrest. This has a strong impact on the victim's family," the production team noted.

The lawyer emphasized that while there are criteria established in the Code of Criminal Procedure (in the Mendoza case, Article 280), the executing judge can add exceptional conditions depending on the case. This explains, for example, the special restrictions faced by public figures such as comedian Cacho Garay or even former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

"A public figure may be prohibited from leaving the province or the country, even if they are fully free. These are decisions made by the judge, beyond what the law generally establishes," Romero explained.

The law is not completely exhaustive, but Romero listed some of the most common requirements: people over 70 years of age, women with children under five, people with incurable illnesses or disabilities, provided the State cannot guarantee them adequate care in prison.

However, he clarified that these criteria are not automatic.

"A 70-year-old person doesn't qualify directly. They must have complied with previous prison regulations and not have committed any violations. If they don't comply, they may not qualify for the benefit, even if they are of age or have an illness," he noted.

According to recent data from the Penitentiary Service, there are approximately 6,000 people deprived of their liberty in Mendoza, of whom around 10% are under house arrest. For Romero, this number is understandable: “Prison overcrowding is one of the main reasons. Many judges are more considerate of minor offenses, and the defendants themselves accept strict rules to avoid going to prison.”

A key point in the debate is the monitoring system. In cases like that of Guaymallén, neighbors reported that the defendant's anklet wasn't working properly. Romero was clear on this point: "If the anklet breaks or is damaged, an alert is automatically sent to the prison system. If it was intentional, the benefit is revoked. In some cases, when anklets are unavailable, inmates must return to the prison."

The difference between the provincial and federal systems is also important. While provincial control is stricter and more regular, in the federal system, monitoring may not be as frequent, and often the georeferenced bracelet is not even worn.

"In the provincial system, if a defendant moves more than 10 meters away from the base station, an alarm sounds and a mobile phone arrives within minutes. The problem isn't the technology, but the monitoring," he clarified.

Finally, Romero insisted that beyond what is established by national law, the central figure is the enforcement judge. He or she is the one who imposes the specific rules for the benefit and can revoke it for any noncompliance.

"He can order no parties, no entertaining of certain people, or even restrict movement within the home. It all depends on the judge's assessment and the convict's behavior," he concluded.

Listen to the full article here, and you can listen to the radio live at www.aconcaguaradio.com