A Comparative Analysis of Expansive Prosecutorial Practices and Their Impact on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Due Process
In recent years, Argentina has seen a concerning trend in criminal cases: prosecutors extending their authority beyond legal limits, creatively interpreting laws, and handling evidence carelessly, raising significant human rights issues. As an international human rights lawyer, I have watched these developments with growing concern. This issue spans various fields and communities, affecting religious minorities labeled as cults, dissidents, indigenous activists, and ordinary citizens ensnared in a prosecutorial system that sometimes lacks adequate checks.
The special anti-trafficking office, PROTEX, provides a clear example. Argentina’s human trafficking laws are already unusually broad internationally, yet PROTEX and influenced prosecutors have extended them further. Originally aimed at combating organized crime’s exploitation of prostitutes and forced migrant labor, these laws have been applied to spiritual minorities and voluntary religious work. Courts have sometimes supported these theories, but in other instances, they have issued strong cautions. Judges have criticized reliance on coercive persuasion stereotypes, automatic labeling of believers as victims, and careless evidence handling.
Recent rulings highlight the issue. On October 13, 2025, Federal Judge Roberto Falcone acquitted evangelical pastor Roberto Tagliabué after three years of pretrial detention. Charges included human trafficking for labor exploitation, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and illegal medical practice, allegedly through coercive persuasion. Falcone found no factual basis for the narrative by Prosecutor Laura Mazzaferri and PROTEX, denouncing the uncritical use of reports from the National Rescue Program (NRP), which had classified church members as victims without verifying circumstances.
In 2022, the Federal Court of Tres de Febrero dismissed charges against members of the movement Cómo Vivir por Fe, noting that anti-cult activist Pablo Salum’s influence had distorted the investigation. The court emphasized that treating voluntary adherence to a minority faith as a criminal act introduces a paternalistic concept incompatible with democratic principles.
In 2024, the Federal Oral Court of Paraná acquitted defendants of the International Tabernacle Church, documenting serious abuses by PROTEX and the NRP, including coercing believers to identify as victims.
These cases reveal a prosecutorial culture that sometimes prioritizes ideology over evidence. The issue extends beyond religion. The case of Konstantin Rudnev, a Russian dissident and former spiritual teacher detained in Bariloche in 2025, illustrates this broader pattern. The lead prosecutor, Fernando Arrigo, head of the Decentralized Prosecutor’s Office of Bariloche, has faced repeated criticism in Argentine media for his evidence handling.
Arrigo has often encountered trouble. He is involved in the case of Franco Casco’s death, a young man who disappeared in Rosario in 2014 after police detention. His body was later found in the Paraná River. The case became a national scandal, with Casco’s family and human rights organizations alleging police torture and enforced disappearance. Arrigo participated in the investigation, criticized for irregularities, delays, and mishandling forensic evidence. Courts eventually acquitted police officers, and the case has been reopened under Arrigo’s insistence. Police officers involved have complained to the General Prosecutor requesting a criminal case against Arrigo for evidence falsification. This complaint remains stalled, creating an impression of reluctance to advance.
I am not taking a position on the Casco case’s substance. I am aware accusations of brutality and abuse are often raised against Argentine police post-military dictatorship. My concern lies elsewhere: evidence mishandling by prosecutors may convict the innocent or acquit the guilty, undermining the rule of law.
A similar situation has arisen in the Rudnev case. The alleged victim complained to the General Prosecutor against Arrigo and others, accusing them of forcing her to identify as a victim and subjecting her to abuse. The complaint was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office and quickly closed for lack of grounds. These examples illustrate a structural issue. In Argentina’s prosecutorial system, complaints against prosecutors are ineffective, and officials bear no responsibility for actions, even in abuse of power cases.
Arrigo is also the prosecutor in Facundo Jones Huala’s case, generating intense debate. The prosecution claims Jones Huala organized violent actions, though media reports indicate reliance on statements during a book presentation rather than specific terrorism acts. Human rights defenders note that, as of June 2026, the investigation remains incomplete and no formal charges have been filed despite continued liberty deprivation.
At each review of the preventive measure, the prosecution seeks to extend pretrial detention, citing case complexity and defendant beliefs’ alleged threat. When Judge Ezequiel Andreani ordered his transfer to Esquel, the Bariloche Prosecutor’s Office appealed, signed by Arrigo, freezing execution. Relatives
Leave a Reply