VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #0982/01 2401830
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281830Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4284
INFO RUCNMER/MERCOSUR COLLECTIVE
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 1922
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 1160
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 2553
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ AUG CARACAS 1979
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 000982 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR WHA/BSC AND INL/LP HOOKER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SNAR PREL KCRIM PGOV AR
SUBJECT: ARGENTINA: SUPREME COURT RULES FOR LIMITED 
DECRIMINALIZATION OF NARCOTICS FOR PERSONAL USE 
 
REF: Buenos Aires 0811 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: As anticipated for many months (reftel), the 
Argentine Supreme Court ruled August 25 against criminal penalties 
for the personal possession of marijuana in a case involving five 
young adults arrested with marijuana cigarettes in 2006.  The court 
ruling appears to open the door to decriminalization of personal 
possession of other drugs as well.  The justices restricted 
decriminalization to cases involving small amounts, in which no 
third party is harmed, and in which the possession occurs in a 
private place.  They called on the Government to make changes along 
these lines to national drug laws and also to increase resources for 
treatment and for fighting traffickers.  Reaction by the church, 
center-right political leaders, some pro-government provincial 
leaders, and several commentators was critical, focusing on the 
negative message the decision would send to youth and on the 
difficulties it might cause for law enforcement efforts against 
traffickers.  Within Government, moreover, there remain concerns 
about the effects of decriminalization.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) As had been long anticipated based on statements to the press 
by individual Supreme Court Justices, the Supreme Court ruled August 
25, in a unanimous seven vote decision, to acquit five young adults 
arrested in 2006 after purchasing marijuana cigarettes from dealers. 
 (Note: In 2008, a lower court upheld the convictions of the three 
dealers also arrested in the case.  The Supreme Court ruling did not 
touch their convictions, signaling that the GOA continues to 
prosecute dealers and traffickers. End Note)  The ruling, if applied 
broadly, may decriminalize personal possession of any narcotic (not 
only marijuana) in cases where the use is private and individual and 
where no third parties are harmed.  (Note: Precedent in the 
Argentine legal system is not as clearly defined as it is in the 
United States, and cases involving other drugs may have to be 
considered individually by lower courts and then again by the 
Supreme Court.  End Note) 
 
¶3. (U) In explaining the ruling, Court President Lorenzetti went far 
in marking a sphere of personal freedom from state authority, saying 
that the Court recognized that "every adult is sovereign to take 
free decisions about the way in which they live."  The Justices 
pointed to Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution, guaranteeing 
personal liberties, to support the ruling.  Justice Carlos Fayt 
emphasized his view that the ruling indicated that the solution to 
drug abuse lay through treatment rather than sanctions, while 
Justice Raul Zaffaroni gave attention to an "enormous expense of 
effort, time and money by law enforcement against insignificant" 
cases of possession.  Justice Enrique Petracchi and others called on 
the state to increase efforts against traffickers and to find 
additional resources for prevention and treatment of addiction. 
 
 
¶4. (U) The justices spoke in broad terms against the current drug 
law's emphasis, in its application, on small consumers.  Ninety 
percent of narcotics cases, they said, had been brought against 
small-time users, leading to stigmatization and unjustified 
inconveniences against those arrested.  Still, the justices 
emphasized that to be "not punishable," any use and possession had 
to be private and of a small quantity.  Justices Fayt and Carmen 
Argibay further emphasized that the possession could not be 
"ostentatious, that is to say, that the individual has not exhibited 
the drug." 
 
Precedent and Application 
------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) GOA officials, particularly Cabinet Chief Fernandez, have 
long made clear their intention to send Congress a legislative 
proposal to decriminalize possession of small quantities, and this 
court ruling appears to give further impetus to that.  At present, 
the draft legislation is being developed by a commission of experts 
organized by the executive, prior to submission to the Congress. 
Until drug laws are changed, police will still be expected to arrest 
anyone possessing marijuana or other drugs.  Only judges can make a 
determination to dismiss a specific case based on the Supreme 
Court's ruling and arguments.  The Supreme Court's ruling, however, 
does appear to apply to drugs other than marijuana, so the ruling 
may be quickly challenged or built on in other cases.  The ruling 
may also have an effect on the willingness of law enforcement to 
 
make arrests in cases involving small amounts of possession.  One 
citizen quoted in the press pointed to an upside of that, saying 
that police officers would request fewer bribes. 
 
Supporters and Critics React 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The Government's Chief of Cabinet Anibal Fernandez, a vocal 
proponent of decriminalization during his previous tenure as 
Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights, praised the court 
decision and reemphasized the GOA's intention to fight trafficking. 
"It is along the lines of what we have been urging," he said, 
"reversing the repressive policies applied by Nixon and then adapted 
with such enthusiasm by Lopez Rega" [an Argentine Minister of Social 
Welfare in the early seventies blamed for a variety of human rights 
abuses], "policies that have not succeeded in reducing cultivation 
or consumption, not even by a bit, anywhere in the world."  Op-Ed 
columnists supporting the Government's position echoed the Court's 
statements, saying the country would be better served by an emphasis 
on prevention, treatment and law enforcement efforts against 
trafficking organizations. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The new Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights, 
Julio Alak, asked the CDA in an August 27 pull-aside what he thought 
the impact of decriminalization might be.  Alak said that he would 
be interested in any studies showing effects on consumption of 
decriminalization measures in other countries.  He also requested 
information on how small possession offenses are dealt with in the 
United States.  (Note: Members of post's Law Enforcement Working 
Group have begun gathering information along these lines to share 
with the Minister; post welcomes additional materials, particularly 
Spanish-language documents.  End Note) 
 
¶8. (SBU) Critics of the measure included the Catholic Church's 
Pastoral Commission on Addictions led by Bishop Jorge Lozano. 
Lozano said that while the Commission understood the reasons behind 
the decision, the country would not overcome the "tragedy of drug 
abuse, particularly among youth and adolescents," by "facilitating 
consumption and by making something that is bad appear to be 
acceptable." He focused on the impact in poorer neighborhoods, 
arguing that youth would be less reluctant to try marijuana, which 
could lead to harder drugs and/or addiction.  Another critic, the 
presidentially-appointed head of the National Commission for Drug 
Treatment and Prevention (SEDRONAR), Jose Granero, also dissented, 
arguing that the ruling implied it "was OK to use drugs." 
 
¶9. Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri, of the opposition center-right 
PRO party, called the Supreme Court's decision an "error."  He 
linked his critique to the popular concern over rising crime, saying 
that drug use was "intimately tied" to delinquency and crime. 
Another PRO party leader, national Deputy Eugenio Burzaco, argued 
that the decision would diminish law enforcement efforts against 
trafficking because most sales occurred in small quantities and the 
ruling would make it hard to address these transactions. 
 
¶10. (U) Prominent Union-Pro Deputy Elect Francisco de Narvaez said 
that the ruling would aid traffickers, arguing that "many countries 
that have taken this step have had to reverse it later because it 
promoted consumption, insecurity, and violence."  His Congressional 
ticket-mate Felipe Sola said that Argentina was "not prepared" to 
manage a decriminalization regimen and that the Justices were not 
living in the real Argentina, the "conurbana" of poorer suburbs 
surrounding Buenos Aires.  From beyond Buenos Aires, reaction 
appeared to be mixed but mostly critical, with even some nominally 
pro-Kirchner figures like Tucuman Governor Alperovich calling the 
decision ill-advised and likely to lead to more consumption. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) While GOA leaders and the Supreme Court make a valid 
argument over the lack of sufficient resources in Argentina to help 
drug addicts, it is not clear that the Supreme Court's ruling will 
elicit any real increase in attention to this deficit.  In the 
meantime, the country will face new law enforcement challenges in 
addressing rapidly rising consumption (reftel).  We are not 
concerned that the ruling will diminish our important bilateral 
collaboration against drug trafficking and will make this plain if 
 
asked by press.  At the same time, however, the ruling's potential 
impact on local demand warrants attention, as does the government's 
response in terms of improving its prevention and treatment record. 
The request for more information from the Justice Minister gives us 
an excellent opportunity to share our views on the subject with a 
key GOA decision-maker. 
 
Kelly