Florencia, thank you for the comment! For those of us who are less informed about the politics of Justice Lorenzetti, could you provide a little more background?

Also, I would be grateful for an explanation of your point about CIDIP II. I assume you have in mind Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures, which provides:

The grounds for a preventive measure shall be decided in accordance with the laws and by the judges of the place of the proceedings. However, its execution and the counter preventive measure or guaranty shall be determined by the judges of the place where execution is sought, in accordance with its law.
The guaranty that the requesting party is to provide and any guaranty that the party affected may offer to provide in the place where the measure is to be executed shall be governed by the law of the place where the measure is executed.

Here in Argentina the decision was seen as an exchange of political favours. At least among those who know the case and understand its implications.

Furthermore, no one was able to explain the disregard of the 3º article of CIDIP II.

On top of that, the sentence was pronounced with an unusual speed for our judicial system.