In this paper we will address the full strategy developed by the Coordinadora de Abogadxs de Interés Púbico (CAIP), together with different NGOs and social movements, to access public information about the legal and procedural conditions under which, in 2018, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) granted the Argentine Republic the largest loan in the history of that financial institution.

For this purpose, we will explain how we were able to demonstrate, with official files and public documents issued by the National Executive Power (PEN, by its Spanish acronym) and the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic (BCRA, by its Spanish acronym), that the 2018 stand-by credit and its subsequent extension are manifestly null and void for having grossly violated mandatory essential control requirements and procedural safeguards that are imposed on government officers (for this sort of sovereign debt operations) by the Financial Administration Act No. 24.156 (FAA) and the National Administrative Procedure Act No. 19.549 (NAPA).

First, we will briefly review the different administrative, judicial, media and advocacy actions that were performed for that purpose as part of a joint strategy, as well as their concrete results and the impact they generated on the Congress and the PEN.

Secondly, we will explain the scope of the complaint filed for obtaining a declaration of nullity of the loan, based on the discovered official files and documents. As we will see, although so far it has not been possible to obtain the legal nullity of the loan, the strategic litigation on this delicate and transcendental issue has achieved numerous concrete objectives. We hope they will deepen the discussion by showing the political illegitimacy of the debt, and consequently reach another Nunca Más (never again) consensus on this type of arbitrary and illegal maneuvers.

Finally, we will argue about the convenience of transferring and implementing the approach and working methodology that we deployed in Argentina in other countries, as well as to profit from the experience gained during its development. To this end, we will point out three specific benefits that this type of strategic litigation can bring in the struggle to avoid the imposition of arbitrary and illegal loans by the IMF, which historically (in collusion with national public officers), had consistently conditioned the development of our societies.