Extradition Lawyer in Buenos Aires: Juzgados Federales, Buenos Aires and the Local Procedure

Which Buenos Aires court actually receives the case?

Article 111 of Law 24.767 generally assigns a formal extradition request to the federal criminal judge on duty with jurisdiction over the requested person's place of residence. If the residence is unknown or multiple residences cross judicial districts, the Foreign Ministry can select among the eligible district judges or an on-duty federal judge of the Capital. The title “Buenos Aires” therefore does not prove that the matter is in the Capital's court system.

For a provisional-arrest request first brought to a judge, Article 112 follows those allocation rules and keeps the subsequent extradition request before the judge already involved. A different rule matters for provisional arrest without prior judicial intervention: under Article 113, the on-duty federal criminal judge at the place of arrest is competent and retains the extradition case. Counsel should obtain the arrest report, timestamp, warrant and docket identifier before addressing a particular court.

Within the autonomous city, the official national judicial directory identifies numbered Juzgados Nacionales en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal at Comodoro Py 2002, as well as the Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal with Sala I and Sala II at that complex. These are distinct bodies: the first-instance judge deals with the extradition file; the chamber can hear particular interlocutory challenges where the relevant procedural route permits it. It is not the ordinary appellate destination for the final extradition judgment under Article 33.

In legal instruments, the appeal court's name also needs checking: Article 6 of Law 27.150 calls the former Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal the Cámara Federal de Apelaciones en lo Penal de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. The judicial directory still uses the historic criminal-and-correctional description for its Sala I and Sala II. These refer to the relevant federal appellate institution, not to the separate ordinary criminal chamber. Ask for the exact name and chamber shown on the court docket.

Aeroparque is inside the city; Ezeiza is not

Official Argentine government location guides place Aeroparque Jorge Newbery (AEP) in the City of Buenos Aires and Ministro Pistarini Airport (EZE) in Buenos Aires Province. This geographic distinction has immediate legal value. A provisional arrest without advance judicial intervention at Aeroparque points to the Capital's territorially competent on-duty federal judge under Article 113. An equivalent arrest at Ezeiza does not automatically go to a Comodoro Py judge: the provincial federal jurisdiction, the arrest mechanism and any judge already seized of the matter have to be established.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian passenger is stopped at Aeroparque after an international alert. The family hears only “detained in Buenos Aires.” Counsel should first determine whether there was a pre-existing federal warrant or an arrest without prior judicial intervention; then identify the on-duty judge and ask for the provisional-arrest paperwork. If the same event occurred at Ezeiza, assuming a Capital court could send the urgent inquiry to the wrong registry. An INTERPOL alert is not itself a final surrender order: Articles 44, 48 and 49 regulate the possible provisional-arrest process and judicial control.

The local institutions to identify before making an urgent filing

The federal defence service publishes a 2026 CABA duty rota for defenders before the federal criminal courts and appeals chamber. It lists Defensoría Nº 2 for October 2026, but the person actually appointed must be verified on the individual file. The monthly rota is not a substitute for the judicial appointment. Similarly, the initial police holding site and later detention establishment cannot responsibly be identified from the airport alone; family members should ask counsel to confirm the custody order, facility and authorised visitation procedure.

The first 72 hours: a practical checklist, not a statutory 72-hour limit

Under Article 50, in the statutory default position a provisional arrest ends, or its specified conditions end, when 30 calendar days pass from notification of that arrest to the requesting state without a formal extradition request. The Foreign Ministry may extend that time by ten calendar days if the requesting state applies and shows it could not submit the proper request in time. Article 50 also permits the judge, on application, to set a completion period when administrative processing of a received formal request is delayed; a later formal request can permit renewed arrest. Treaty-specific rules must be compared before calculating any release application. This is not an automatic maximum for every form of detention throughout a fully pending extradition trial.

Language, defence, consent and detention are separate decisions

At the Article 27 hearing, the judge explains the request, offers the choice of a private lawyer or official defence, records the person's response and asks, after consultation with counsel, whether they consent to extradition. The person may defer the answer. If they do not speak Spanish, the judge appoints an interpreter. The practical priority is to make sure the interpreter can communicate effectively and that the detainee has consulted counsel before answering a question whose consequences may end the judicial stage.

Article 26 ordinarily excludes the domestic rules on ordinary pretrial release from extradition, except as the statute itself provides. This must not be casually described as either a guaranteed entitlement to bail or an absolute ban on all detention challenges. The competent judge and procedural stage matter. In Garay Gonzáles, Chamber II of the Federal Cassation Court, 6 May 2025, case FLP 144573/2018/3/1/CFC2, a majority set aside a refusal of release-related relief and ordered reconsideration because relevant material was not adequately assessed. It did not order unconditional release, and it concerned a Lomas de Zamora case; counsel in the Capital must check the applicable chamber route and subsequent authority rather than cite it as an automatic local result.

The prosecutorial directorate DIGCRI separately explains that interlocutory challenges may reach the Federal Appeals Chamber or the Federal Cassation Court depending on the issue and stage. By contrast, Article 33 specifies an ordinary, suspensive appeal to the Supreme Court against the final decision on extraditability. These procedures have different jurisdictions and consequences. Detailed refusal grounds and post-decision remedies belong in the Argentina remedies guide.

For a final judicial extradition judgment, Supreme Court practice applies a five-day period for lodging the ordinary appeal under Articles 244 and 254 of the national Civil and Commercial Procedure Code; the grounds are presented at a later appellate stage, for which the prosecutor's April 2026 guidance describes a ten-day period. Counsel must verify service of the judgment, court-day calculation and the actual order opening the grounds stage immediately. These periods are not deadlines for challenging an earlier arrest or detention order, and a suspended appeal is not itself a release order.

How the Buenos Aires file differs from the nationwide procedure

The court's identity is only one part of the record. A helpful local instruction to foreign counsel is: ask the Argentine lawyer for the complete court caption, numbered juzgado, case number, date of judicial seizure, detention order, and the specific appeal chamber if an intermediate decision is under review. Confirm the duty defender against the published CABA rota, and check whether the arrest was at AEP or EZE. These facts may determine which judge can order production of the detainee, consider a detention submission or verify the arrival of foreign documents.

The Capital is also undergoing a scheduled procedural transition. Ministry of Justice Resolution 186/2026 (15 April 2026) postpones implementation of the Federal Criminal Procedure Code for federal and economic-crime courts in the City of Buenos Aires until 15 February 2027, not already in force there in October 2026. Therefore, do not assume new juez de garantías labels or another district's appellate timings govern a current Capital case. Counsel must check any later change if proceedings continue into 2027.

Countrywide treaty choice, the judicial/executive distinction and detailed conditions for refusal are addressed in the Argentina extradition guide. Argentina is not in the European Arrest Warrant system. A bilateral extradition treaty, when applicable, takes precedence under Article 2 of Law 24.767; for example Argentina's treaty with the United States is approved by Law 25.126. Argentina is not listed as a party to the European Convention on Extradition in the Council of Europe's Treaty 024 status table. For each requesting country the actual treaty, amendments and reservations must be checked, not assumed from the person's citizenship.

The Supreme Court's Aliaga Reyes ruling of 23 December 2025 set aside a surrender-eligibility judgment where the required Article 27 hearing and Article 30 extradition trial had not occurred. The case arose in Salta, where the Federal Criminal Procedure Code (CPPF) was already in force. It supports checking that the required hearing and trial took place, but it does not make Salta's CPPF hearing or appeal schedule automatically applicable to an October 2026 case in the Capital. Obtain the actual hearing minutes, trial order and service records before choosing a remedy.

Documents for relatives and foreign defence counsel

• Send the spelling and date of birth appearing on each passport, plus any evidence of mistaken identity, rather than sharing an unverified rumour about a notice.
• Preserve the exact arrest location, time, agency and court identifier; request a copy of the arrest minute and details of the hearing.
• Provide lawful proof of residence, language needs, medical prescriptions and urgent family circumstances to the appointed defender.
• Ask for the actual detention facility and its lawyer/client contact and visit procedure before attempting an in-person visit.
• Forward the formal request, translations and foreign decisions to local counsel through secure channels; track receipt dates separately from arrest dates.
• Keep the Argentine court challenge separate from any challenge to underlying foreign proceedings or an INTERPOL data record.

If a family member cannot locate the person, begin by seeking the arresting authority and federal court assignment; neither the airport name nor a foreign embassy can replace confirmation of the Argentine judicial file. The site's team can coordinate cross-border defence with local counsel through the case enquiry form.