Argentina: The Troubling Pattern of Fernando Arrigo

An Argentine prosecutor, repeatedly questioned over irregular methods, now faces criticism in three unrelated proceedings.

By Alessandro Amicarelli

I first took an interest in Prosecutor Fernando Arrigo and his team because of their prosecution verging on obsession of the Russian dissident and spiritual teacher Konstantin Rudnev, whom they accuse of being a “cult” leader. As I continued examining the case, I discovered that Arrigo displays a similar fixation in the proceedings against the Mapuche leader Facundo Jones Huala. Argentine media report that a third case has raised comparable concerns about his conduct. This is the case of Franco Casco.

Casco was a young man who disappeared in Rosario in October 2014 after being detained for a few hours at the 7th Police Station. Days later, his body was found in the Paraná ArrigoRiver. The police officers involved were eventually acquitted after a long trial, although the Cassation Chamber later annulled that decision following an appeal promoted by the prosecution and the complainants.

The Casco family has long expressed anguish and suspicion about what happened to him. Argentina has a painful history of police brutality, even in democratic times, and I fully understand the concerns of the relatives. I am not taking a position on whether the accused officers are guilty or innocent. My focus is on the pattern that emerges from an examination of Prosecutor Arrigo’s conduct.

According to the detailed complaint filed by retired police commissioner Diego José Álvarez, Arrigo and his colleague Marcelo De Giovani are accused of using “false, incomplete, and contradictory statements” in their submissions. The complaint describes a series of irregularities: the selective use of forensic evidence despite four autopsies pointing in the same direction; the reliance on a single expert whose testimony, according to the complaint, consisted of generalities; the marginalization of numerous witnesses whose statements contradicted the prosecution’s theory; and the elevation of one detainee’s testimony despite inconsistencies about his location and his own admission that he had received benefits. The complaint also refers to videos and documents that were allegedly overlooked or remained inaccessible for long periods, as well as shifting prosecutorial theories about the time and place of Casco’s detention. These elements, taken together, raise serious questions about the methods Arrigo and his team employed.

Unfortunately, we are observing an almost identical situation in the case of Konstantin Rudnev. There is insufficient evidence of guilt, the case is being artificially delayed, and Rudnev’s former lawyer filed a complaint alleging the falsification of case materials.  Similar signs of arbitrariness are also observed in the case of Facundo Jones Huala.

The Cassation Chamber has still not reviewed the application in the Franco Casco case, which was filed back in 2023. At the same time, Arrigo’s Cassation appeal in the Rudnev case, seeking his transfer from house arrest back to jail,  was considered in an extremely short time frame, in violation of established procedural deadlines. The lawyer was not given a real opportunity to appeal the very filing of the complaint. The hearing was held, and Konstantin Rudnev was returned to prison. Similar signs of arbitrariness are also observed in the case of Facundo Jones Huala.

At present, all these cases are attracting international attention. Many demand the removal of Prosecutor Fernando Arrigo from his position due to signs of a biased, excessively harsh approach, as well as repeated instances in which his actions have harmed individuals, including his alleged cavalier treatment of evidence. A person employing such methods should not hold a responsible position in law enforcement.

Why does Prosecutor Fernando Arrigo remain untouchable by the law? Why, apparently, are his actions being shielded by others? It is not about the substance of the Casco case. It is about Arrigo.