J. Mallevi / CC BY-NC 2.0

Q: Argentines were shocked by the untimely death Jan. 18 of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who had accused Argentina's president and foreign minister of covering up responsibility for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires. The country's security minister said the death appeared to be a suicide, but others, including President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, voiced suspicions about foul play. Do Argentine authorities have sufficient independence to get to the bottom of what happened? Does the country's judiciary have enough strength and autonomy in major cases like that of the Jewish center bombing? Will the case have a chilling effect on future investigations? A: Horacio Verbitsky, president of the Center for Legal and Social Studies in Buenos Aires: "The Argentine judiciary has the independence and resources to investigate Nisman's death and is working seriously. However, it is very difficult to reconstruct the truth decades after the AMIA bombing given the deliberate diversion of the investigation. Former President Carlos Menem and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in conjunction with U.S. President Bill Clinton, agreed to forget the Syrian track and focus on Iran, as evidenced by documents declassified in 2003. In June, the trial against Menem, former Judge Juan José Galeano and two of his prosecutors for obstruction of justice will begin. The third prosecutor was Nisman, who was not charged and continued working in the same line, with intelligence services fed by its Israeli and American counterparts. AMIA case Judge Rodolfo Canicoba questioned the probative value of that material. The shock of the murder or suicide of Nisman does not affect an analysis of his accusation. Only on two pages of his report did he attempt to give some legal argument, strangely without citing doctrine or jurisprudence. His argument's backbone is the attempt by CFK and Timerman to annul the 'red notice' alerts against seven accused Iranians, an attempt blocked by Ronald Noble, the former secretary general of Interpol. The purported motivation of the government had been to obtain Iranian oil. But Noble said in an interview that Nisman was lying and in an e-mail to Minister Timerman said that the Argentine government's position has always been 'consistent and unwavering' that 'Interpol should keep the red notices in force.' Further, Argentina doesn't import oil, but rather fuel and gas not produced by Iran, whose heavy oil is incompatible with Argentine refineries." A: Luigi Manzetti, Faculty Fellow at the John G. Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University: "The simple answer to the question is no. According to the World Justice Project 2013, Argentina ranks among the worst countries in terms of politicians' impunity in corruption cases. Only a handful of corruption cases in the last 25 years have ended in conviction. Since Argentina's return to democracy in 1983, Peronist presidents have been particularly keen on curtailing judicial independence. It started in 1989 when Carlos Menem packed the Supreme Court. More recently, the trend has continued under Cristina Kirchner. In 2013, a Peronist-dominated Congress approved an executive-sponsored bill aimed at destroying whatever independence there was. Unfortunately for Ms. Kirchner, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Indeed, in recent years, the Supreme Court and some lower courts have tried to assert their independence in some important cases. The recent spate of judicial inquiries on corruption charges affecting a lame-duck Ms. Kirchner, her vice president and several administration officials and business associates can be interpreted in this way. However, it has created anxiety in the president's camp prompting Attorney General Alejandra Gils Carbó to issue a decree appointing loyal substitute state prosecutors in charge of sensitive corruption investigations. Alberto Nisman added to this executive-judiciary showdown when he disclosed that he had wiretaps suggesting that Ms. Kirchner had tried to cover up the possible involvement of Iran in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish organization in Buenos Aires killing 85 people. Should Gils Carbó's effort succeed, the possibility of impartial investigations, which can be damaging to the government, will be highly unlikely. In fact, Ms. Kirchner has just announced the intention of sending to Congress a bill proposal according to which any judge or prosecutor who wishes to request a wiretap must first get the approval of the attorney general." A: Martín Federico Böhmer, professor of law at Universidad de Buenos Aires and global law professor at NYU-Buenos Aires: "I do not think the main issue is lack of independence, but rather a general perception of lack of impartiality. Argentine authorities have been lying, breaking promises, disregarding legal and parliamentary processes, deciding on partisan interests and thus eroding their legitimacy. Nobody believes anything, and so many do not respect their decisions. This lack of impartiality sometimes derives from a perception of lack of independence and sometimes from using public office to persecute the opposition or public officials. Therefore, even if they ever get to the truth, it is very likely that a large portion of the citizenry will not believe them. In major cases, when the pressures are stronger, they lack the basic professional capabilities to meet the challenge. They lack long-established ethical practices, legal ethics education in law schools and training in evidence and in argumentation. There is a great need for a legal community able to hold its members accountable, to criticize their actions and to support their decisions. Without such institutions and practices, not only will cases not get solved, but the rule of law in general will be further undermined." A: Santos Goñi, attorney and Buenos Aires-based international affairs consultant: "The international audience interested in the case has expanded because of the prosecutor's untimely death. Historically, Argentina is a federal republic with a system of division of powers like that of the United States. After a period of de facto military rule, it returned to being a functioning democracy in 1983, with presidential elections scheduled for next October. Argentine judicial authorities have had sufficient formal independence and are traditionally zealous of it. In recent years, they have become increasingly wary of challenges to the exercise of their constitutional functions, including recently-passed judicial reform bills deemed in part unconstitutional. Prosecutor Nisman's demise has intensified the public's awareness of this and produced a pointed political response to the effect. The country's judiciary shows itself confident in its capacity to exercise its strength and autonomy in major cases. International interest in the Jewish center bombing and the 1992 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires should not detract from the judiciary's role in the constitutional division of power with the executive and legislative branches of government. In those circumstances, future investigations will be further empowered by the response to the Nisman case evidenced by most sectors of Argentine society."