The court handed down a sentence of 3.5 years in prison to Gaston Mercansini after he threw a glass bottle toward Argentinian President Javier Miley during the inauguration events. The incident drew coverage in La Nacion and other outlets as authorities described the act as an attempt to cause minor bodily harm to the president. The president’s sister, Karina Miley, and several security personnel were in close proximity when the bottle struck a guard during the procession from Congress to the capitol in a convertible.
Mercansini faced separate accusations connected to the same episode, with one defendant receiving a 1.5 year term. In Mercansini’s case, a previously suspended sentence was counted toward the present punishment, resulting in the 3.5 year prison term. It was noted that Mercansini had prior convictions for assault involving the mother of his children, which likely influenced the severity of the sentence.
The attack on Miley occurred on December 10 as the president traveled from Congress toward the capitol, with the flying bottle hitting a security guard rather than causing direct injury to the president. The broader implications of the incident prompted discussions about safety measures for national leaders during high-profile public engagements, and authorities reviewed how such threats are addressed within the legal framework.
In the days following the event, questions were raised about the accuracy of biographical details circulating in international outlets. A report in a major Spanish-language bookstore listing suggested aspects of Miley’s education, including studies at the University of California and an economics degree. Local authorities later clarified that some of these details did not align with Miley’s documented background, emphasizing the importance of reliable biographical information in public records.
Meanwhile, officials in Argentina commented on the media coverage surrounding Miley, noting that certain statements about the president’s asserted biography could be considered slanderous depending on the context and publication. The case highlighted the ongoing tension between political reporting and the need for careful, fact-based commentary in national and international press.