Fernando Báez Sosa Case Updates: Justice’s Decision
- The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has refused to analyze the extraordinary appeal presented in the Máximo Thomsen case, deeming it "inadmissible." This decision marks a...
- "El recurso extraordinario, cuya denegación originó esta queja, es inadmisible (art.
- The highest court, composed of judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti, made this determination based on article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of...
Supreme Court Rejects appeal in Máximo Thomsen Case
Table of Contents
Published: 2025-03-20
Supreme Court Declares Appeal “Inadmissible”
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has refused to analyze the extraordinary appeal presented in the Máximo Thomsen case, deeming it “inadmissible.” This decision marks a notable point in the ongoing legal proceedings.
“El recurso extraordinario, cuya denegación originó esta queja, es inadmisible (art. 280 del Código Procesal Civil y Comercial de la Nación)”
Supreme Court of Justice
The highest court, composed of judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti, made this determination based on article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation.
Defense Attorney Expresses Frustration
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Francisco Oneto, Máximo Thomsen’s lawyer, voiced his discontent on social media, citing frustration over “todos los atropellos e irregularidades” of the judicial process.
“Absolutamente falso. Salvo que los medios se enteren antes que la Defensa de una resolución judicial, lo que no me extrañaría y sería uno más de todos los atropellos e irregularidades que contiene el proceso por el cual se lo juzgó a Máximo”
Francisco oneto, Attorney for Máximo Thomsen
Oneto stated that he had not been notified about the Supreme Court’s rejection to recuse the judges of dolores. He emphasized, “A mí no me notificaron de absolutamente nada, con lo cual da cuenta de cómo la Justicia considera esta causa un show mediático antes que un ejercicio real de defensa, porque tenía que haberme enterado yo antes que nadie.”
The defense attorney stressed “la poca seriedad con la que la Justicia maneja esta causa” and asserted that “lo único que interesa es convertir a Máximo y a sus consortes de la causa en unos mártires para poner una vidriera.”
Oneto clarified the formal notification process, stating, “No puedo andar golpeando puertas de oficinas diciéndome ‘me enteré lo que pasó’. Hasta que no me notifiquen, la decisión no surte efecto hacia Máximo y no corre el paso para recurrir,” as he told NA.
Background: Convictions Confirmed
On March 22, 2024, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Province of Buenos Aires upheld the convictions for the rugbiers involved in the case.
- Máximo Thomsen, Ciro Pertossi, Enzo Comelli, Matías Benicelli, and Luciano Pertossi: Received life sentences.
- Ayrton Viollaz, Blas Cinalli, and Lucas pertossi: Sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Stay Updated
Here’s a Q&A-style article based on the provided text, designed to be informative, professional, adn evergreen:
Máximo Thomsen case: Key Questions Answered
This article provides answers to frequently asked questions about the Máximo Thomsen case, focusing on the recent supreme Court decision and the overall legal proceedings.
Q: What is the latest development in the Máximo Thomsen case?
A: The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has rejected the extraordinary appeal presented in the Máximo Thomsen case,declaring it “inadmissible.” This decision halts the possibility of further appeal at the highest court level in Argentina, according to the article.
Q: What does “inadmissible” mean in the context of this Supreme Court decision?
A: “Inadmissible,” as used by the Supreme Court, signifies that the court has decided not to analyze the merits of the extraordinary appeal. This is based on Article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation. Essentially, the court believed that the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for review.
Q: Who are the judges involved in this Supreme Court decision?
A: The Supreme Court judges who made this determination were Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti.
Q: What is Francisco Oneto’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: Máximo Thomsen’s lawyer, Francisco Oneto, expressed strong frustration wiht the decision and the overall handling of the case on social media. He cited “todos los atropellos e irregularidades” (all the abuses and irregularities) in the judicial process. He also stated that he had not been officially notified of the rejection, which further fueled his discontent.
Q: Why is Oneto frustrated about not being notified of the decision?
A: Oneto believes that the lack of notification demonstrates the court is prioritizing media attention (“show mediático”) over a fair defense.He emphasizes that he should have been informed before the public. Furthermore he thinks the case is being shown as a way to portray Máximo and his accomplices as martyrs.
Q: What were the original convictions in the Máximo Thomsen case?
A: The Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Province of Buenos Aires upheld the convictions of the individuals involved. Note: The provided article doesn’t describe the crime itself and the convictions only. The convictions are summarized below:
| Convicted Individuals | sentence |
| ———————————- | —————- |
| Máximo Thomsen | Life Sentence |
| Ciro Pertossi | Life Sentence |
| Enzo Comelli | Life Sentence |
| Matías Benicelli | Life Sentence |
| Luciano Pertossi | Life sentence |
| Ayrton Viollaz | 15 years |
| Blas Cinalli | 15 years |
| Lucas Pertossi | 15 years |
Q: When were the convictions confirmed?
A: The Criminal Cassation Chamber upheld the convictions on March 22, 2024.
Q: What is the role of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation in this case?
A: The Supreme Court’s decision to declare the appeal “inadmissible” is based on Article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code of the Nation. This suggests the code outlines the criteria for appeals to the highest court and the grounds on which thay can be rejected.
Q: What are the next steps following the Supreme Court’s ruling?
A: The article does not explicitly state the next steps in the case, but with the appeal deemed “inadmissible,” it suggests that the original convictions confirmed by the Criminal Cassation Chamber are likely to stand.