Privacy in Argentina

Argentina country report of the Epic (Electronic Privacy Infomation Center) survey “Privacy and Human Rights” (2005, 2006 and 2007):

Constitutional Privacy Framework

Articles 18 and 19 of the Argentine Constitution provide (in part), “The home is inviolable as is personal correspondence and private papers; the law will determine what cases and what justifications may be relevant to their search or confiscation. The private actions of men that in no way offend order nor public morals, nor prejudice a third party, are reserved only to God’s judgment, and are free from judicial authority. No inhabitant of the Nation will be obligated to do that which is not required by law, nor be deprived of what is not prohibited.” Article 43, enacted in 1994, provides a right of “habeas data”[1]: “Every person may file an action to obtain knowledge of the content and purpose of all the data pertaining to him or her contained in public records or databanks, or in private ones whose purpose is to provide reports; and in the case of falsehood of information or its use for discriminatory purposes, a person will be able to demand the deletion, correction, confidentiality or update of the data contained in the above records. The secrecy of journalistic information sources may not be affected.”[2] The Habeas data remedy is also included in the constitutions of many provinces of Argentina[3] but only a few of them have local data protection legislation. Argentine jurisprudence has recognised this remedy as a fundamental and directly applicable right. Up to now most habeas data cases have dealt with correction of commercial and credit information.

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled in two important cases on the scope of habeas data. The leading case is Urteaga v. Estado Nacional.[4] There, the Supreme Court allowed an individual access to personal information about his brother, who had disappeared during the military government, presumably in an armed conflict.[5] The lower courts dismissed the action of habeas data for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals reasoned that habeas data grants access only to personal information, and the claimant was trying to access data related to a third person. However, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. The core of the judgment indicated an expanding approach to the interpretation of habeas data, granting a wide right of access to personal information.

The other case is Ganora v. Estado Nacional,[6] where the Supreme Court of Argentina established that habeas data can be used against any kind of public database. The claim was initiated by two lawyers who were defending Adolfo Scilingo, an ex-navy official who confessed his participation in crimes during the military regime. Arguing investigation and surveillance from the Government, the lawyers requested access to data in official databases about them. The district court judge and the Court of Appeals refused access, even without hearing the government’s arguments based on a national security exception. The Supreme Court of Argentina restated its holding in Urteaga and the need to interpret habeas data in light of the international and foreign legislation. They cited the European Human Rights case Leander[7] and also made a reference to Nixon v. United States,[8] where the United States Supreme Court rejected the arguments of President Nixon, who alleged a confidential privilege over information. Finally they concluded that habeas data allowed access to government databases, and that an exception based on public interest should be subject to judicial review. This case shows the expanding interpretation of habeas data by the Supreme Court of Argentina.

Data Protection Framework

In November 2000, Argentina passed the Law for the Protection of Personal Data (LPDP).[9] It is in conformance with Article 43 of the Constitution and based on the European Union Data Protection Directive and the Spanish Data Protection Acts of 1992 and 1999. It contains provisions relating to general data protection principles, the rights of data subjects, the obligations of data controllers and data users, the supervisory authority, sanctions, and rules of procedure in seeking habeas data as a judicial remedy. Habeas data is a special, simplified and quick judicial remedy for the protection of personal data. International transfer of personal information is prohibited to countries without adequate protection. The European Union decided that Argentina could be considered as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data meeting the requirements of the EU Data Protection Directive.[10] The adequacy finding implies that all transborder data flows between Argentina and the European Union are presumptively considered in compliance with the EU Directive. Argentina is the first country in Latin America to obtain such adequacy approval.

In November 2001 the Government enacted the Regulation of the Data Protection Act,[11] which lays down rules for the enactment of the Act, supplements its provisions, and clarifies diverging interpretations of the LPDP. Argentine data protection rules cover the protection of personal data recorded in data files, registers, databanks or other technical means, which are public; and the protection of personal data recorded in data files, registers, databanks or other technical means which are private, whose purpose is to provide reports. This includes those whose purpose is more than exclusively personal, and those that are intended for the assignment or transfer of personal data. Collection of sensitive data is given additional protections and is prohibited unless authorized by law.[12]

Several provinces are enacting their own data protection laws or regulating the habeas data remedy procedure. For example, in 2005 the City of Buenos Aires passed a data protection law.[13] This law contains general data protection principles, the rights of data subjects, the obligations of data controllers and data users, the supervisory authority, and sanctions. The Province of Chubut passed a law that regulates the habeas data remedy procedure in that city. The Province of Misiones passed a law that also regulates habeas data. The Province of Neuquén passed a law that creates the Neuquén Personal Data Registry (REPRODAP).[14] The Province of Corrientes will amend its Constitution to include the habeas data procedure.[15]

In addition to the LPDP, data protection provisions are also contained in several legal instruments regulating different sectors, such as credit card transactions, statistics, banking, telecommunications or health.[16]

A “Do-Not-Call Registry” was enacted in 2006.[17] Its objective is to protect telephone customers from possible abuses due to telemarketing activities. In the register any individual holder of a telephonic line can list him/herself for not being contacted by these enterprises. The registration process is valid for two years since its incorporation to the “Do-Not-Call Registry” and is automatically renewable for the same period. The government is still drafting the regulations associated with the implementation of this law.

The Province of Buenos Aires created an alimentary debtors’ register (registro de deudores alimentarios). The register will contain the name of any father or mother who does notmeet his or her obligation to pay three consecutive or five alternate support payments meant to cover the food needs of their children.[18]

A gambling regulation prohibits publishing the name of the winners of gambling games.[19]

Data Protection Authority

The LPDP has established a data protection authority within the Ministry of Justice, the National Directorate for the Protection of Personal Data (Dirección Nacional de Protección de Datos Personales) (DNPDP) ,[20] which has a staff of 20 persons,[21] and is in charged of receiving and processing complaints, enforcing the LPDP and endowed with powers of investigation and intervention (e.g., through sanctions of an administrative and a criminal nature). Fines range from ARS 1,000 to 100,000 (between USD 335 and 33,500).[22] In 2006, the DNPDP registered 232 new complaints.[23] The DNPDP publishes on its website recommendations for protecting privacy of Internet users. The aim is to advise consumers on dangers when surfing the web and using e-mail. It describes malwares, spywares, spam, scams, phishing and how to avoid them.[24]

As of May 2007, the DNPDP had only imposed one penalty, to the Telefónica de Argentina S.A. Fifteen individuals filed a claim to the DNPDP against Telefónica de Argentina S.A requesting Telefónica to stop their telemarketing activities; however, the company did not cease its activities. The DNPDP ruled that the conduct breached the LPDP and imposed a fine of $ 3,000 per each of the fifteen claimants, $ 45,000 (USD 15,000), and requested the Telefónica de Argentina S.A to take explicit actions towards the safeguards of the privacy of their customers.[25]

Among many other duties, the LPDP requires that any private or public database containing personal information, either in electronic or hard-copy format, must be registered in the National Database Registry (the Registry) of the DNPDP. The Registry is an organ integrated in the DNPDP. Its purpose is to enable every individual to exercise the right to know about data processing, its purpose and the identity of the data controller in order to be able to exercise the right of access, rectification, deletion and opposition. This Register is free and available to the public for consultation. During 2006, more than 20,000 individuals and companies have been registered in the National Database Registry.[26]

Starting on April 2006 and for a period of 4 years, the DNPDP is conducting a census of public databases of the National Government, first the Executive Branch, second the Legislative Branch, and third the Judicial Branch and the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público).[27]

Major Data Protection Case Law

Meanwhile, courts have started to interpret the LPDP. A civil court held in 2000 that information about marriage is not within the kind of personal data requiring consent from the data subject. The Commercial Court of Appeals ruled in March 2002 that the term “private databases whose purpose is to provide reports” encompasses all kind of databanks, including banks and financial companies, even if their database was not intended initially to provide reports,[28] and also that the data protection law applies to bank and financial entities in general.[29] Also, courts are applying the prohibition to provide information about credit card transactions and correcting information that is not kept up to date. In an interesting case that applied the data protection act, another trial Court ordered Equifax/Veraz to provide personal data without codification and in an intelligible way.

The Federal Police also applied the LPDP to a case of surveillance of a political party. The president of this political party, Gustavo Beliz, sued the police under the data protection law and habeas data clause of the Constitution requesting all the information that the police had obtained from his party. The Administrative Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had the right to access the personal information that the police had collected about him without any suspicions of criminal activity. It also held unconstitutional the secret regulation opposed by the defendant for the collection of this data.

In February 2004, a Court of Appeals of the Province of Tucumán ruled that judges could not impose fines in the LPDP because the only authority authorized by law is the DNPDP.[30]

In February 2006, the Commercial Court of Appeal of Buenos Aires held that it was not enough for a bank to let customers opt out for using customer’s own personal data for other purposes than those relating to their banking service. The case arose when Citibank sent a letter to all their clients in Argentina telling them that the bank will share clients’ personal data with third parties unless the clients opt out in a ten-day period of time. A bank client sued the bank seeking the confidentiality of his own personal data. The Court of Appeals held that the use of personal information for marketing purposes infringe the purpose limitation principle of the data protection law. This was the first case enforcing this principle in Argentina.[31]

In February 2007, Argentinean Federal Courts began an investigation of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), the Brussels-based money-transfer company, on the grounds that it had violated confidential information when it released data on more than 1.3 million money transfers made from Argentina. The case was filed by the General Prosecutor, German Moldes, and is being handled by a federal judge. The case arose after a report by London-based Privacy International alleged that the transfer of data to the United States had not followed established legal procedures.

During 2006 and 2007 more than 80 Argentinean models and actresses obtained court orders to force Google (google.com.ar) and Yahoo (yahoo.com.ar) to remove from their local search engines their names and images that link to pornography and female-escorts sites, in order to preserve their constitutional rights to privacy, honor, and good name.[32]

The Supreme Court of Justice refused to delete the names of the plaintiff in a countersuit involving sexual abuse charges. The plaintiff claimed that the publication of his name would damage his reputation as a lawyer. Although the Supreme Court of Justice recognized that the publication might damage the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the claim stating that the publication is a direct consequence that came from the plaintiff’s own bad behavior.[33]

In another case, the Supreme Court of Justice stated that a company cannot receive information related to the delinquency of its clients directly from credit cards entities. The Credit Cards Law.is designed to protect credit cards consumers, and it cannot be modified to allow the market to obtain more personal information. Further, this law does not infringe the company’s right to freedom of work or freedom of speech. [34]

Specific Rules on Privacy

The Civil Code protects the right to privacy by prohibiting those who arbitrarily interferes in another person’s life: publishing photos, divulging correspondence, or disturbing his/her privacy by whatever means.[35] This article has been applied widely to protect the privacy of the home, private letters and several situations involving intrusive telephone calls, and neighbor’s intrusions into one’s private life. This provision has been applied widely to private and public plaintiffs.

In 1998, the Argentine Congress enacted the Credit Card Act.[36] The object of this bill is to regulate credit card contracts between consumers and financial institutions and specifically the interest rates that banks charge to consumer credit cards. Article 53 restricts the possibility of transferring information from banks or credit card companies to credit reporting agencies.[37] There is also a specific right of access to personal data of a financial nature. The Central Bank of Argentina, whose jurisdiction includes the overview of the monetary policy in the financial market, has authority to regulate banks. Under that authority it created a public debtor’s database, requiring financial entities and banks to collect and classify debtors within a range of risk and to send the information to the database.[38] Under Article 8.1 of the regulation,[39] the data subject (a client of a bank) has a right of access to his/her information and to know why he or she was included in the database.[40]

Under the Criminal Code the illegal sale of personal data and data trafficking over the Internet may be prosecuted. The Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice have drafted a bill to specifically deal with computer crimes. The bill will prohibit violation of privacy by any means and illegal access to computer systems and networks. Government is pursuing the enactment of this bill due to a case of hacking of the Supreme Court’s website. The federal judge of the case concluded that the 1921 Criminal Code had no crimes related to computer damage or illegal access. After this decision, the Supreme Court asked the Ministry of Justice to draft a bill to cover this new kind of crime. The bill is currently pending.

Wiretapping and Surveillance Rules

Under the Code of Penal Procedure, “A judge may arrange, for the purposes of building a case, the intervention of telephone communications or whatever other means of communication.” The Penal Code provides penalties for publishing private communications.[41] The National Defense Law prohibits domestic surveillance by military personnel.

In April 1999, the Criminal Court of Appeals in Buenos Aires recognized a right to privacy in electronic mail communications applying a section of the Penal Code related to the protection of secrets. Although the criminal provision was drafted in 1921, the Court had an open approach to the interpretation of the statute.[42] Under this case, data such as stored files and e-mail is not to be examined by anyone else without the user’s permission.

In 1995, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the judicial authorization for wiretaps was too broad.[43] In December 2001, a new intelligence law was enacted with implementing regulations to be issued 180 days later. The law provides for legislative oversight of government intelligence activities. It also prohibits the unauthorized interception of telephone, postal, facsimile, and other communications and private documents. The Penal Code, dating from 1921, did not previously punish wiretapping. There have been numerous scandals relating to unauthorized wiretapping over the years and several cases of wiretapping were dismissed because of the lack of a criminal statute.

In 1996, the national government began a new crackdown on tax evaders. Measures included reviewing citizens’ credit cards, insurance, and tax records. One bill allowed citizens whose credit card records had been obtained to sue for invasion of privacy.[44] The same year, the Argentina Passport and Federal Police Identification System, developed by Raytheon E-Systems, was inaugurated at the Buenos Aires airport. The system combines personal data, color photos and fingerprints.[45]

In January 2004 the Congress approved a controversial Data Retention Law that amended the National Telecommunications Law of 2003.[46] The new law compels all telecommunications companies and Internet Service Providers to record, index and store traffic data for a 10-year period, in order to give information to the Judicial Branch and the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) when required.[47] There was a strong pressure from ISPs and the public opinion against this decree.[48] In April 2005, the mainstream media soon reported on the controversial measure.[49] On April 25, the President suspended the decree to allow some time for its evaluation.[50]

Unsolicited Commercial E-mails (“Spam”)

On November 11, 2003 a federal judge from the City of Buenos Aires ordered halt to spamming in Argentina’s first spam case.[51] The decision was very welcome because spam was previously not under control in the country.[52] The plaintiffs argued that the LPDP gives them a right to opt out from receiving spam, which the defendant, a well-known Argentine spammer, did not comply with when the plaintiffs asked to be removed from his database.[53] The Federal Court of Appeals eventually decided that federal courts had jurisdiction to hear the case because the Internet was used to send spam.[54] On April 7, 2006 a federal judge issued the final decision ordering the defendants to stop dealing with plaintiff’s personal data and to delete it. The decision asserted that the sending of spam infringed article 27 of the LPDP.[55]

At the same time, iCAUCE.ar,[56] the Argentinean Committee of the International Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email was created. In 2004 several anti-spam bills have been introduced in Congress, most of them proposing opt-out systems. In June 2004, The Argentine Chamber of Databases and Online Services (CABASE) and the Argentine Direct and Interactive Marketing Association (AMDIA) organized the first AntiSpam Conference in Argentina.[57] As a result both associations signed a letter of intent in order to work together against spam. The most interesting and complete anti-spam law proposal came from iCAUCE.ar.[58] The bill[59] will be introduced in Parliament soon but will first be shared with AMDIA and CABASE members, which are the two major associations dealing with spam in Argentina, and whose members are marketing and ISP companies which aim is to submit a bill together with iCAUCE.

Open Government

In November 1998, the City of Buenos Aires approved a law on access to information. The law gives all persons the right to ask for and to receive information held by the local authorities and creates a right of judicial review. Individuals have the right under habeas data to update, rectify, maintain the confidentiality of, or suppress their information.[60] But critics say that government agencies jealously keep public records and that it is very difficult to obtain information.[61] While the National Congress stalled any legislative proposals in this matter, on December 2003 a Presidential decree[62] established freedom of information in the Executive Branch.[63]

International Obligations

Argentina became a member of the United Nations Organization on October 24, 1945[64] and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1986.[65]

[1] Habeas data is a subcategory of the procedure enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of constitutional rights, therefore making the protection of personal data a fundamental, as well as directly applicable, right. See European Commission Decision pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Adequate Protection of Personal Data in Argentina, June 30, 2003, available at [link].

[2] Constitución de la Nación Argentina (1994), available at [link], see also [link] (in Spanish).

[3] List available at [link].

[4] Urteaga c. Estado Nacional, Supreme Court of Argentina, October 15, 1998, 1-2 Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías 193 (2000).

[5] This case was decided one month after a case where the Supreme Court denied a mother the right to access to information about her daughter, who had also disappeared during the military regime. In “Aguiar de Lapaco,” the Court based its opinion in the principle of non bis in idem or guarantee against double prosecution (double jeopardy) because the right of access was used in criminal proceedings and the defendants were granted a presidential pardon. But the Court opinion was the object of strong political and scholarly criticism, and the high tribunal distinguished “Aguiar de Lapaco” from “Urteaga” since the last one was a civil case. Justice Boggiano’s dissidence in “Aguiar de Lapaco” stated that habeas data could be used in the case to access to any kind of information held by government.

[6] Ganora, Mario c/ Estado Nacional y otros /habeas corpus y habeas data, Supreme Court of Argentina, September 16, 1999, 1-2 Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías 229 (2000).

[7] Leander Case, 116 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 9 (1987).

[8] 418 United States 683 (1974).

[9] Law No. 25.326, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[10] European Commission Decision pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Adequate Protection of Personal Data in Argentina, supra. See also the Data Protection Working Party – Article 29, Opinion 4/2002 on Adequate Level of Protection of Personal Data in Argentina (WP 63). October 3, 2002, available at [link], which the European Commission took into account to make its decision.

[11] Approved by Decree No. 1558/2001.

[12] See Data Protection Working Party – Article 29, Opinion 4/2002 on Adequate Level of Protection of Personal Data in Argentina (WP 63). October 3, 2002, supra.

[13] Ley 1.845 sobre Protección de Datos Personales de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires [Data Protection Law of the City of Buenos Aires], November 24, 2005, [link] (in Spanish).

[14] Ley que crea el Registro Provincial de Datos Personales of Neuquen (REPRODAP) [Law that creates the Data Protection Registry of Neuquen], Decree 313/03.

[15] El Litoral, Newspaper, May 23, 2007, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[16] See generally “Complementary National Legislation”, available at https://www.protecciondedatos.com.ar/legislacion.htm#legis3>.

[17] Ley 2.014 que crea el “Registro-No-Llame”, [Do Not Call Register Law], June 26, 2006, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[18] Ley que crea el Registro de Deudores Alimentarios Morosos [Alimentary Debtors Register Law] Law 13.074, [link] (in Spanish).

[19] Ley que regula los juegos al azar [Gambling Games Law], available at [link].

[20] DNPDP web site available at [link] (in Spanish).

[21] E-mail from Dr. Pablo Segura, Legal Coordinator of the DNPDP (Director Técnico Legal de la DNPDP), to Katitza Rodríguez, International Policy Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center, May 11, 2007 (on file with EPIC).

[22] Regulation DNPDP 7/05, Infracciones y Sanciones [Offense and Penalties DNPDP Disposition], available at [link] (in Spanish).

[23] E-mail from Dr. Pablo Segura, supra.

[24] Recomendaciones para uso seguro de la web y protección de la privacidad, [Recommendation for safe Internet uses and privacy protection], available at [link] (click on “Recomendaciones”.

[25] DNPDP penalty to Telefónica de Argentina S.A, available at [link] (click on “Registro Nacional” and then on “Sanciones”).

[26] E-mail from Dr. Pablo Segura, supra.

[27] DNPDP 2/06, available at [link] (click on “Normativa”).

[28] Halabi, Ernesto c/ Citibank NA s/amparo, CNCom, Sala C, 26/3/2002.

[29] Becker, José c/Banco de la Provincia de Buenos Aires s/amparo, CNCom, Sala E, 15/5/2002, with a sounded opinion of the Attorney General (Fiscal de Cámara).

[30] Moisa, Benjamín c/ Banco Río de la Plata S.A. s/ amparo informativo, Cámara de Apelaciones en lo Civil y Comercial común de Tucumán, Sala I, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[31] El Salvador, Claudio vs. Citibank, available at [link].

[32] Zamolo vs. Yahoo de Argentina SRL, CNCiv. Sala I, No. 10411/2006, 11/14/06.

[33] “Kook Weskott, Matías s/ abuso deshonesto”, File 963 – CSJN (Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina), [link] (in Spanish).

[34] Supreme Court, “Sobre la Ley de Tarjetas de Crédito”[link] (in Spanish).

[35] Código Civil [Civil Code], Article 1071bis, incorporated by Law No. 21.173.

[36] Law No. 25.065 of December 7, 1998 (Official Bulletin of January 14, 1999).

[37] Credit Card Act, Article 53 (“Bar to inform. Credit Card entities, companies and banks and other financial entities shall not transfer information about credit card debts to credit report agencies when the data subject has not paid its debts or is having financial problems, without prejudice of personal data that must be transferred to the Central Bank under current regulations. Those who transfer this information to third parties shall be liable for the damages produced by the release of the personal data.”)

[38] See Financial System Debtors Database “Central de Deudores del Sistema Financiero,” regulated by the Central Bank Circular A 2729 (consolidated version by Circular 2930).

[39] Article 8.1, Central Bank Circular A 2729 (consolidated version by Circular 2930).

[40] Available at [link] (in Spanish) and on CD-ROMs. The last CD-ROM contained a list with 1,950,000 individuals including data on their financial status.

[41] Código Penal de la República Argentina, Articles 153-157, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[42] Criminal Court of Appeals in Buenos Aires (Sixth chamber), 4.3.99 “Lanata c. Dufau,” in El Derecho, (E.D.), May 17, 1999.

[43] United Nations, 19th Annual Report of the Human Rights Committee, A/50/40, October 3, 1995.

[44] New York Times, June 10, 1996.

[45] Business Wire, September 12, 1996.

[46] Law No. 25.873 of December 17, 2003, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[47] Ley Nacional de Telecomunicaciones [Law No. 19.798, National Telecommunications Law], approved on August 1972, modified by Law No. 25873, Official Journal, February 9, 2004, available at [link] and [link] (in Spanish).

[48] See Beatriz Busaniche web log’s at [link] (in Spanish) and Digital Journalism web log at [link] (in Spanish).

[49] See Mariana Carvajal, “Hay Un Espía en Mi PC,” available at [link] (in Spanish), “Vigilancia Electrónica,” available at [link] and “Invasión a la Privacidad,” Página 12, April 10, 2004, available at [link] (in Spanish); “Frenan la Polémica Ley para Controlar a Usuarios de Internet,” Clarín, April 12, 2005, available at [link]. See also “Los Datos de Tráfico Gozan de la Misma Protección que los Datos de Contenido,” Interview of Pablo Palazzi, Diario Judicial, April 12, 2005, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[50] Decree No. 357/2005 that suspends the application of the Decree No. 1563 of November 8, 2004. (Decreto 357/2005 Suspéndase la aplicación del Decreto No. 1563 del 8 de noviembre de 2004, available at [link] (in Spanish). See also Carvajal, Mariana. “Marcha atrás con el Espionaje por Computadora”, available at [link].

[51] Gustavo Daniel Tanús and Pablo Andrés Palazzi, c. Cosa, Carlos Alberto y Magraner, Ana Carolina s. Habeas Data, Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 3, Secretariat No. 6.

[52] David Haskel, “Judge in Argentina Orders Halt to Spamming in First E-mail Junk Case,” BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Vol. 2, No. 47, p. 1344, November 24, 2003.

[53] See generally [link].

[54] See generally [link].

[55] Tanús, Gustavo Daniel y otro c/ Cosa Carlos Alberto y otro s/ habeas data” – Juzgado Civil y Comercial Federal Nº 3 de la Capital Federal, Secretaría Nº 6 – April 7, 2006, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[56] iCAUCE is an international organization formed by organizations around the world engaged in pressing for laws against e-mail spam, which includes both unsolicited commercial email and unsolicited bulk email . iCAUCE’s mission is to provide a support mechanism for volunteers who wish to undertake these activities in countries that do not have an independent lobbying organization.

[57]See [link].

[58] See [link].

[59] See [link].

[60] See Pablo Andrés Palazzi, El Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública en la Ley No. 104 de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 11 REDI- (June 1999), available at [link] (in Spanish).

[61] See La Nación, “Es de Difícil Cumplimiento la Ley de Acceso a la Información,” July 11, 2000.

[62] Decree 1172/2003, available at [link] (in Spanish).

[63] See María Baron, “The Transparency Labyrinth in Argentina”, April 13, 2004 [link] (in Spanish).

Report

Argentina passed its National Intelligence Act in 2001. This Act created the Bicameral Committee for the Oversight of Intelligence Bodies and Activities, a committee made up of both houses of the Legislature. The committee began operating in 2004 with four sub-committee’s feeding into the work of the main committee.

On paper, Argentina had set up a rigorous oversight regime, but in practice there have been many problems. According to the findings, Argentina has failed to provide any public oversight of their intelligence agencies by maintaing complete secrecy about the activities of the oversight committee. Further, one of the vital aspects of oversight — review of classified documentation – is wholly dependent on an agency authorising the review of such documents, making any meaningful oversight subject to the will of the body being controlled.

Civil society in Argentina has been challenging this weak accountability regime. Repeated requests were made by ADC and the Latin American Institute for Security and Democracy (ILSED) for the most basic information regarding the committee such as the number of meetings held, reports produced, requests made to the Secretariat of Intelligence.

Yet none were answered. This lead ADC and ILSED to file a claim at the Supreme Court seeking to declare this complete silence unconstitutional.