In Sentence No. 20 of this 2025, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes confirmed the imposed sentence on two men convicted of crimes against wildlife and illegal possession of weapons and rejected the cassation appeals filed by the defenses of the defendants, ratifying the measures adopted in Sentence No. 70/24 issued by the Single Judge of the III Judicial District. This ruling reaffirms the firmness of judicial action against crimes that threaten the natural heritage and the legality in the handling of weapons.
The Incident
On May 21, 2022, around 2:00 p.m., the two men were intercepted on a farm located in the fourth section of the Sauce Department, Corrientes. According to the proven background in the case, the accused were at the location dressed in camouflage clothing and carrying various items used for hunting, including two firearms ready to shoot, one of which was equipped with a suppressor (silencer).
“Regarding the sentence itself, it was a situation that occurred in the town of Sauce, on a farm, 2 people had permission to hunt in one place and they went to hunt in another place with modified weapons, including having silencers, which is prohibited, and they were hunting on someone else’s land. Therefore, they were sentenced in one case to 3 years and 9 months and the other to 2 years and 4 months, in a public oral trial, and it is an important precedent because, truth be told, at the time of being detained they hadn’t hunted anything, but they were dressed in camouflage clothing, weapons ready to fire, so they were in a hunting attitude, which was confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice. And also, a person was sentenced for lending the weapon to someone who is not a legitimate user, which is also prohibited.” Stated to Noticias Ambientales, Dr. Gerardo Cabral, Rural and Environmental Prosecutor of Corrientes.
The investigation determined that, without the express written authorization of the farm owner, the defendants initiated the pursuit of a wild animal, which led to criminal action against them.
“It is a practice deeply rooted in the province of Corrientes, and although not only for the people of the province and the world who come to engage in this hunting activity. Regarding the awareness of wildlife, there are sectors of the province that have it well embraced and others that do not. For example, in the area of the Esteros del Iberá, everything related to wildlife, biodiversity, and preservation is deeply rooted, but not in the southern area like Sauce, Esquina, Goya, or Monte Caseros.” Added to Noticias Ambientales, Dr. Gerardo Cabral, Rural and Environmental Prosecutor of Corrientes.
Esteros del Iberá, one of the world’s most important wetlands[/caption>
Public Prosecutor’s Ruling
After a thorough analysis of the ruling in response to the grievances raised by the cassation appeals, the Attorney General, Dr. César Pedro Sotelo, expressed his opinion in the prosecutor’s ruling. In his words, it was stated: “it is recommended to reject the cassation appeals filed.” This statement reaffirms the position of the Public Ministry regarding the strength of the ruling’s rationale and the correct assessment of the evidence gathered during the investigation and trial.
Rationale of the Ruling
During the case analysis, the court examined the crimes against wildlife, addressing in detail the grievances presented by the defenses, which questioned both the rationale of the ruling and the alleged violation of constitutional guarantees and the principle of congruence.
Among the defense arguments, the controversy over the classification of crimes, the alleged atypicality of the conduct, and the alleged irregularities in the preparatory criminal investigation were highlighted. However, the court maintained that the evidence presented during the trial, combined with the assessment of the probative elements, allowed to prove the authorship of the acts and the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct, rejecting the nullity exception and the procedural objections raised.
“This sentence that is now final, through the Criminal Cassation, one is effectively enforceable because it exceeds 3 years of imprisonment in the case of Mr. Miño and in the case of Mr. Arnodo it is 2 years and 4 months on probation, as it does not exceed 3 years, so he will not serve any prison system and due to the lack of a criminal record, but he cannot commit another crime for a period of 4 years. If he does, it will add to what he already has, the new crime he commits.” Completed Dr. Gerardo Cabral, Rural and Environmental Prosecutor of Corrientes, who is a member of the Argentine Association of Environmental Prosecutors.
Have you visited our YouTube channel yet? Subscribe now!
