APPEAL

SR. JUDGE

XXXXX, in his own right, with real domicile at , Pdo. of , CP ; with the legal representation of .
registered at Tº Fº and of the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in
AUTOS XXXXXXXXXXX, before VS. I introduce myself and respectfully say:

I- OBJECT

That in legal time and form I come to file an appeal against the precautionary measure issued in
the proceedings dated the date that provides for the exclusion from my home and prohibition of
approach with respect to Mrs. and my sons Pablo and, because it causes me an irreparable
damage because it is arbitrary and contrary to law for the reasons set forth below.

II- GROUNDS

The appellant is displeased with the Resolution that issues a precautionary measure excluding me
from my home and prohibiting me from approaching my wife and children for a period of 90 days,
since it lacks reasonable grounds, since SS. It did not evaluate in a pertinent manner the facts that
prima facie appear in what seems to me to be a totally excessive and unjustified resolution, with
respect to the prohibition of approach of at least 300 meters from my two children, who were not
victims of any type of violence, and that there is no evidence of any type of expertise that verifies
such circumstance with respect to them.

From the study of the proceedings it appears that from the same complaint of the alleged victim,
Mrs. there is no indication that the minors have suffered any violence, adding furthermore at fs.
1....

In addition, by prohibiting me from approaching my children, I am being denied my right as a

parent to see them and their right to maintain a filial relationship with the non-cohabitating
parent due to the extraordinary events. On the other hand, SS did not take into account the best
interest of the child, which is the maximum, integral and simultaneous satisfaction of the rights
and guarantees recognized in the current legal system, as established in Art. 75 inc. 22 NC in the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child in its articles 3º incs. States Parties shall
respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, members of the
extended family or community, as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons
legally responsible for the child to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of
the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized
in the Convention.States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or,
where applicable, members of the extended family or community, as provided for by local custom,
legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner
consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the
exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court of Justice of the Nation understands that VII.Recently, this highest Court has had the
opportunity to return to the idea that judges must weigh the future consequences of their
decisions, especially when the addressees are children (CSJN in re "A.F." 13/3/2007, citing Fallos
312-371 consid. 61 y 71)".

"...the child's interest is prioritized over the presumed interest of the adult. (...) In the Court's
opinion, this legal rule that orders the interest of the child to prevail over any other considerations
has, at least at the level of the judicial function where disputes are settled, the effect of
conceptually separating that interest of the child as a subject of law from the interests of other
individual or collective subjects, including, as the case may be, that of the parents. Therefore, the
coincidence between one and the other interest will no longer be something logically necessary,
but a normal and regular but contingent situation that, in the face of conflict, will require specific
justification in each concrete case (Vote of Drs. Fayt, Zaffaroni and Argibay)". "...the primary
consideration of the child's best interests, which the Convention on the Rights of the Child - art.
3*.1 - imposes on all national authorities in matters concerning minors, orients and conditions all
decisions of the courts of all instances called upon to judge cases, including this Supreme Court,
which, as the supreme organ of one of the branches of the Federal government, is responsible for
applying - to the extent of its jurisdiction - the international treaties to which our country is bound,
with the preeminence that the Constitution grants it.The Supreme Court, as the supreme organ of
one of the branches of the Federal government, is responsible for applying - to the extent of its
jurisdiction - the international treaties to which our country is bound, with the preeminence
granted to it by the Constitution." (Vote of Drs. Higthon de Nolasco and Lorenzetti). (CS, 02-08-05,
in re: "S.G."). CH., T. s/AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL s/CASACION" (Expte. N* 21665/06 - STJ-), (05-
12-06). (05-12-06). BALLADINI - SODERO NIEVAS - LUTZ (abstaining).9

III.- PETITION:

I request that the appeal be granted and, in due course, that the proceedings be sent to the Court
of Appeals of the Court of Appeals.

Provide compliance,

IT WILL BE JUSTICE
IF YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR A DEADLINE TO BE SET OR, AS I SAID BEFORE, PROVIDE EVIDENCE
REQUESTING THAT THE MEASURE BE LIFTED BECAUSE THE CAUSES THAT JUSTIFIED ITS ISSUANCE
NO LONGER EXIST.

APPEALS PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE

SR. JUDGE OF GUARANTEES:

XXXXX, in his own right, holder of DNI , with real domicile at , Pdo. of , CP ; with the legal
sponsorship of Dr. registered to the Tº Fº and of Dr. Tº Fº CAM, maintaining the domicile
constituted in 156 CASILLERO Street, of this City, in IPP Nº /2011- CAUSA Nº/2011, before VS. I
introduce myself and respectfully say:

I- OBJECT

I hereby file an appeal against the precautionary measure issued on April 29, 2011, which provides
for the exclusion from my home and prohibits me from approaching Mrs. and my sons Pablo and
Pablo, because it causes me irreparable harm as it is arbitrary and contrary to law for the following
reasons.

II- GROUNDS

The appellant is displeased with the Resolution that issues a precautionary measure excluding me
from my home and prohibiting me from approaching my wife and children for a period of 90 days,
since it lacks reasonable grounds, since SS. It did not evaluate in a pertinent manner the facts that
prima facie appear in the IPP (a statement has not yet been taken from the accused in the
preparatory criminal investigation), for which reason this resolution seems to me to be totally
unconscionable and unjustified, with respect to the prohibition of approaching at least 300 meters
from my two children, who were not victims of any type of violence, and that there is no evidence
in the IPP that verifies such circumstance with respect to them.I therefore consider this resolution
to be totally unjustified and unconscionable with respect to the prohibition of approaching at least
300 meters from my two children, who were not victims of any type of violence, and that there is
no evidence in the IPP that verifies this circumstance with respect to them.

From the study of the proceedings it appears that from the same complaint of the alleged victim,
Mrs. there is no indication that the minors have suffered any violence, adding furthermore at fs.
14 Vta of the IPP in the Social Report, Ms. In the Social Report, Mrs. is unequivocal in denying
physical mistreatment of the children and "assures that it is the first time that he exercises
physical violence over her", the possibility of danger of probable repetition of illicit acts similar to
those under investigation is null, because there are not enough evidentiary elements to be
evaluated and to determine the participation of the accused in the fact under investigation and to
grant the legal qualification referred to.

From the victim's statements, it appears that physical violence was exercised on Ms. However,
there is no other sufficient evidence to suppose that it was the accused who was violent as she
says, since what really happened was an argument in the family environment in which there was
no physical violence against Mrs., so we would not be facing the assumption of family violence
provided for in Law 12.569.

Another point that aggravates me greatly is the 90-day term, which is too long, without being able
to approach my children, since the study of the proceedings does not show any history of
aggressions or injuries of the accused towards the victim or the children, since it is the first time he
has been denounced for a fact of these characteristics.

Furthermore, there has never been any kind of violence on my part towards the physical,
psychological, moral or any other kind of violence against my children, and that since I have not
been living with my children and my wife, I have paid in due time and form, a percentage of my
salary as alimony for my children. Fulfilling in this way with the family obligations that weigh on
me, as a good father of a family does, in this sense; I am worried about the emotional and affective
stability of my children; since I only maintain telephone contact with them. Nor have I attempted
to violate in any way the measure ordered by S.S. I consider myself a peaceful, reasonable man
and a good father, so I would never harm my children and wife in any way.

In addition, by prohibiting me from approaching my children, I am being denied my right as a

parent to see them and their right to maintain a filial relationship with the non-cohabitating
parent due to the extraordinary events. On the other hand, SS did not take into account the best
interest of the child, which is the maximum, integral and simultaneous satisfaction of the rights
and guarantees recognized in the current legal system, as established in Art. 75 inc. 22 NC in the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child in its articles 3º incs. States Parties shall
respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, members of the
extended family or community, as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons
legally responsible for the child to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of
the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized
in the Convention.States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or,
where applicable, members of the extended family or community, as provided for by local custom,
legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner
consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the
exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court of Justice of the Nation understands that VII.Recently, this highest Court has had the
opportunity to return to the idea that judges must weigh the future consequences of their
decisions, especially when the addressees are children (CSJN in re "A.F." 13/3/2007, citing Fallos
312-371 consid. 61 y 71)".

"...the child's interest is prioritized over the presumed interest of the adult. (...) In the Court's
opinion, this legal rule that orders the interest of the child to prevail over any other considerations
has, at least at the level of the judicial function where disputes are settled, the effect of
conceptually separating that interest of the child as a subject of law from the interests of other
individual or collective subjects, including, as the case may be, that of the parents. Therefore, the
coincidence between one and the other interest will no longer be something logically necessary,
but a normal and regular but contingent situation that, in the face of conflict, will require specific
justification in each concrete case (Vote of Drs. Fayt, Zaffaroni and Argibay)". "...the primary
consideration of the child's best interests, which the Convention on the Rights of the Child - art.
3*.1 - imposes on all national authorities in matters concerning minors, guides and conditions all
decisions of the courts of all instances called upon to try cases, including this Supreme Court,
which, as the supreme organ of one of the branches of the Federal government, is responsible for
applying - to the extent of its jurisdiction - the international treaties to which our country is bound,
with the preeminence that the Constitution grants it.The Supreme Court, as the supreme organ of
one of the branches of the Federal government, is responsible for applying - to the extent of its
jurisdiction - the international treaties to which our country is bound, with the preeminence
granted to it by the Constitution." (Vote of Drs. Higthon de Nolasco and Lorenzetti). (CS, 02-08-05,
in re: "S.G."). CH., T. s/AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL s/CASACION" (Expte. N* 21665/06 - STJ-), (05-
12-06). (05-12-06). BALLADINI - SODERO NIEVAS - LUTZ (abstaining).

III.- PETITION:

I request that the appeal be granted and, in due course, that the proceedings be transferred to the
Court of Appeals of the Court of Appeals.

Provide compliance,

IT WILL BE JUSTICE