Buenos Aires, September 2, 2022: Argentinians march in support of Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, following the attack. Photo: Virginia Chaile/Zuma Press/ContactoPhoto.
By Charo SolĂs – Sep 1, 2025
On September 1, 2022, Argentinian politics shattered: a gun was pointed inches away from Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, but the shot failed to fire. Three years later, impunity remains the lasting scar.
On that day, Argentina stood just centimeters from tragedy. Fernando Sabag Montiel aimed a gun at Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s head, pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire. That moment, captured on camera and seared into the memories of millions, was not an isolated incident. It was the culmination of an escalating campaign of judicial, media, and political harassment against the former president, one that ultimately shattered a fundamental pillar of Argentinian democracy: respect for life.
Three years have passed since then. The trial for the perpetrators is underway, but the judicial cover-up and the silence of much of the political and media establishment have turned the attack into an open wound.
From attack to impunity
The case fell into the hands of Judge MarĂa Eugenia Capuchetti, who narrowed the investigation to three young men linked to the so-called “cotton candy gang”: Sabag Montiel, Brenda Uliarte, and Nicolás Carrizo. They were so named because their main cover was a small street business selling cotton candy. They presented themselves as street vendors, an excuse to be in the area without raising suspicions. Questions about who financed or instigated the attack were shelved.
Mistakes in the handling of Sabag Montiel’s cell phone set the course. The device, key to tracing links, ended up factory reset while in judicial custody. What happened in those critical hours was never explained, but the fact is that the most important piece of evidence disappeared. “We know who pulled the trigger, but the judge did everything possible to ensure we didn’t learn anything else,” said Marcos Aldazabal, Cristina’s lawyer.
Despite testimony pointing to Republican Proposal (PRO) deputy Gerardo Milman—who allegedly anticipated the attack—and to collaborators of Patricia Bullrich, the judge dismissed those leads. Prosecutor Carlos RĂvolo even alleged “irregular” maneuvers to divert the investigation. Three years later, those names no longer appear on the file cover.
A trial with half-truths
The trial began in June 2024. Carrizo was released from prison, leaving only Sabag Montiel and Uliarte in the dock. The prosecution requested 15 and 14 years in prison, respectively, alleging that they plotted to kill Cristina to prevent her from continuing in politics.
At the same time, the vice president’s lawyers emphasized that what is being tried is not just two people, but a culture of hatred. “The question is why two young people decided to commit such an act. And the answer lies in the construction of hatred that has taken root in Argentina,” said lawyer Juan Manuel Ubeira.
The judicial process, however, is proceeding as if the attack had been a solitary act. The investigation into the possible political and intellectual perpetrators remains blocked.
The power of doubt
Meanwhile, public opinion was shaped by the mainstream media. On the night of the attack, journalists from La NaciĂłn+ questioned whether a real attack had taken place. Weeks later, columns in ClarĂn and La NaciĂłn floated the idea of ​​a “self-attack.” Even JoaquĂn Morales Solá spoke of the possibility that Cristina had staged the incident to make herself a victim.
That widely circulated version was categorically refuted at trial. Prosecutor Gabriela BaigĂşn called the hypothesis “nonsense” and clarified that those promoting it were attacking the intelligence and capacity of workers throughout the judicial system. But the damage had already been done: surveys released in those months showed that almost half of the population doubted what had happened.
The media discourse ended up acting as a second layer of impunity. Not only was the focus shifted away from political responsibility, but suspicion was also cast on the victim herself.
The political contrast
There was a contrast between the international and local reactions. Leaders such as Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Nicolás Maduro, and Gabriel Boric immediately condemned the attack.
In Argentina, however, it couldn’t be said that silence or minimization prevailed. Rather, it was a central reaction on the part of those currently in government. Patricia Bullrich, then president of the PRO party, accused the government of “political use” of the incident. Javier Milei also didn’t express clear condemnation. It was one of the important times when Argentinian politics needed to establish a consensus in the face of violence.
This void reinforced the feeling that the attack could be downplayed, as if it were a minor incident and not an assassination attempt against the country’s vice president.
Democracy Under Siege: The Case of Cristina Kirchner and the Return of Proscription
The broken democratic pact
What happened on September 1 was not an isolated accident or the actions of uninitiated individuals. It was the culmination of years of judicial persecution, media demonization, and political violence. The bullet that didn’t come out prevented a tragedy, but it did not erase the mark of a broken democratic pact.
Cristina Kirchner expressed it clearly weeks later in her reunion with the activists: “That day, the democratic agreement, the agreement to respect life, was broken. No political party in Argentina can accept this again.”
Three years later, the attack remains an open wound. Those responsible are about to be convicted, but the possible instigators enjoy impunity. The naturalization and coexistence with narratives of hate that made it possible has not stopped. And Argentina’s democracy faces some uncomfortable questions: seeing that the democratic pact was not solid enough to prevent violence, how can we strengthen its foundations? How can we multiply legitimate tools to resolve our differences? What are the bridges on which freedom of expression and respect for democratic coexistence can meet? To what extent can violent practices in politics be transformed so as not to reach their extremes?
(Diario Red)
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/JB/SH