These proceedings began as a result of a note sent by the agent of the ship RM Power, flagged in the Marshall Islands, to the Argentine Naval Prefecture, stating that when the ship was sailing in international maritime waters an incident occurred involving stowaways and their presumed disappearance.

The Captain had been made aware of a request for repatriation from Argentina formulated by some of the crew - Danilo Dumogho, Pelayre Melvin, Siguan Vicente, Nalumen Stephen, Ryan Lagumbay, and Harvey Baladjay - a fact that drew attention, since none of them was close to the end of his contract. According to the report, once the email was received, the Captain was required to report that one day after leaving the Banana pilot station, they had found four Congolese stowaways, that they had been thrown overboard, and that was the reason that the crew members wanted to disembark and return to their homes.

The Federal Prosecutor applied to have the Captain and relevant crew members charged with homicide, in that they threw the stowaways overboard into the sea (presumably in international waters), without life jackets, having first bound their feet and hands and taped up their mouths.

Held: The Court has jurisdiction and the prosecution should proceed.

The first issue to establish is the competence of this exceptional jurisdiction to intervene in this case. UNCLOS, incorporated into domestic legislation by Law 24,543, must be consulted; as well as the National Constitution; and Law 48, which regulates federal competition.

UNCLOS dedicates art 27 to 'Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship', establishing as a principle the competence of the ship's flag State, in this case the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and then exceptions, among which 'if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State' (see art 27.1.c). Such an end is justified in the records through the notes of the shipowner and the consular authority, where they expressly requested assistance and even waived their jurisdiction in favor of Argentina.

Having verified the Argentine jurisdiction to investigate the accused, such a task falls to the federal justice system as provided in art 116 of the National Constitution that establishes federal competence for 'causes of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction'.

In turn, art 3 of Law 48, which regulates federal jurisdiction, establishes 'in accordance with the norms of international law referred to above (it refers to the aforementioned Convention on the Law of the Sea) that crimes committed on the high seas will be judged by the section judges of the first Argentine port at which the ship arrives' (compare Case 'Mihail, Moisi', Judgment 329:2244 (CMI1626)). The record shows that the ship originating in the Port of Matadi in the Republic of the Congo was destined for the port of Rosario and that it was, indeed, the first Argentine port at which it arrived, as a consequence of which this Federal Court No 3 of Rosario, has jurisdiction over this matter.