⚖️ JUSTICE & PUBLIC HEALTH 

HISTORIC RULING: The Federal Court of Córdoba ordered to pay $95 million to the family of a young woman who died after the Sputnik V vaccine

The Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba determined that Melín Agustina Sartori, 24, died as a direct result of an adverse effect of the Sputnik V vaccine. The ruling, unprecedented in Argentina, obliges the Ministry of Health of the Nation to pay compensation equivalent to 240 minimum retirement benefits – about 95 million pesos – and sets a precedent that could reopen the debate on state responsibility in mass vaccination campaigns.

📅 May 30, 2026 |  ✍️ Journalistic writing |  📍 Cordoba, Argentina

🖼️ [ See reference image: Syringe and vaccine — Unsplash ]

Illustrative image — COVID-19 vaccine (Unsplash / Hakan Nural)

Melín Agustina Sartori was 24 years old and, as described by her entourage during the judicial process, she was in excellent health. He practiced sports regularly and had just started a family business making artisanal pasta. Her family remembered her as a young woman socially committed, generous and full of projects.

On July 15, 2021, Melín went to the Orfeo Superdome in the city of Córdoba to receive the first dose of the Sputnik V vaccine, as part of the national immunization campaign against COVID-19. He did not have any pre-existing pathology that could condition a severe adverse reaction. He was, apparently, the profile of the person that every health campaign considers to be of low risk.

Six days after vaccination, on July 21, he began to show symptoms that at first seemed minor: intense headaches and persistent vomiting. In a first medical consultation, the condition was interpreted as gastroenteritis and the young woman was sent home. However, two days later spontaneous bruises appeared on her face and signs of neurological deterioration that alerted her family.

Hospitalized urgently, laboratory studies revealed an alarming panorama: a platelet count of just 27,000/mm³, when normal values range between 150,000 and 400,000. The diagnosis confirmed a thrombosis syndrome with thrombocytopenia (TTS), also known in the international scientific literature as VITT (Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis). The condition progressed rapidly, causing irreversible neurological deterioration. Melín underwent surgery that failed to reverse the damage. He died on July 29, 2021, just 14 days after receiving the vaccine.

VITT syndrome (vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) is an extremely rare adverse reaction that was identified and documented worldwide during COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, mainly associated with adenoviral vector technology vaccines, such as AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 and Sputnik V itself.

The mechanism is autoimmune in nature: the body generates IgG antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (FP4), which triggers a paradoxical activation of platelets, simultaneously generating clots in blood vessels and a drastic drop in platelet count. The clinical paradox—thrombosis and thrombocytopenia at the same time—is what makes VITT especially severe and difficult to treat with conventional protocols.

Symptoms of VITT usually develop 4 to 30 days after vaccination. In Sartori's case, they appeared on the sixth day. According to the Clinical Hospital of the University of Santiago de Compostela, cited in studies included in the file, it is an event of very low incidence in relation to the total number of doses administered worldwide, although with high mortality once the condition reaches advanced stages.

A report prepared by specialists from the Institute of Pharmacovigilance Sciences of the University of Southampton (United Kingdom), published in The New England Journal of Medicine and assessed by the court, concluded that Melín Sartori's case met the criteria for level 1 of the determination of certainty of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

After the death of her daughter, María Virginia Ruiz filed a claim with the COVID-19 Reparation Fund, the mechanism created by Law 27,573 and Decree 431/2021 to compensate people who had suffered physical harm or died as a direct result of the vaccines applied during the pandemic. However, the administrative path was as tortuous as the judicial process that would follow.

In the first instance, the Superintendence of Labor Risks (SRT) rejected the request. The National Commission for Vaccine Safety (Conaseva) had classified the adverse event as "Indeterminate B1", concluding that there was insufficient scientific evidence to establish a direct causal relationship between the Sputnik V vaccine and the death. The family was not satisfied with that answer and decided to take the case to the federal courts.

The judicial process lasted for almost five years. During that time, the international scientific consensus on VITT matured and consolidated. In May 2024, a turning point: Conaseva itself reviewed the file and, based on the new medical evidence available, reclassified the event. The commission concluded that there was "evidence of causality with the vaccine" and elevated the case to the "A1 Related" category, the highest level of causal certainty on the post-vaccine adverse event rating scale.

That reclassification was a central element for the final resolution of the Chamber. Lawyer Barbará also pointed out that Sputnik V "did not have pharmacovigilance", that is, it did not have a continuous monitoring system for adverse reactions comparable to that of other vaccines authorized by international organizations such as the EMA or the FDA, which made it difficult to detect and recognize this type of event early.

Chamber A of the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba, made up of Judges Liliana Navarro and Graciela Montesi together with Judge Eduardo Ávalos, issued a resolution that legal doctrine already points out as historic in terms of the civil liability of the State in the face of adverse effects of vaccines.

The ruling states that "based on the elements gathered, it is possible to conclude that the event is related to the placement of the Sputnik V vaccine." The court assessed, among other evidence: the medical reports that detected IgG antibodies against FP4; the expert testimonies of hematologist Ana Romina Montivero and pharmacovigilance expert Raquel Herrera Comoglio, who stated that the absence of heparin allowed them to conclude "without a doubt" that the picture corresponded to a VITT triggered by the vaccine; and the 2024 Conaseva reclassification itself.

Judge Liliana Navarro was especially blunt in her vote: "The discussion on the causal link, far from persisting, is technically clear." The ruling also clarifies that the current regulations do not require absolute certainty, but that it is enough to prove the damage and its causal link through the preponderance of the evidence, a standard that, in the court's opinion, the victim's mother satisfied "comfortably".

The ruling also specifies that the judgment will be final subject to the appeals that the parties may file. The Ministry of Health of the Nation, represented in the process, had not issued public comments at the time of going to press.

Law 27,573, enacted in November 2020 during the presidency of Alberto Fernández, authorized the National Executive Branch to enter into contracts for the provision of vaccines against COVID-19 and established, among its provisions, the creation of a Reparation Fund aimed at compensating people who suffered physical harm as a direct result of immunization.

Decree 431/2021 regulated access to this fund, establishing that claimants had to prove the causal link through specialized medical commissions and that the corresponding compensation would be calculated based on minimum retirement benefits, a formula that the Córdoba ruling applied to set $95 million.

However, as evidenced in the Sartori case, the administrative mechanism proved insufficient to guarantee effective access to reparation. The family had to go through almost five years of legal litigation to obtain the recognition of a right that the law had provided. This gap between the regulatory design and the practical reality of its application is one of the points that the ruling implicitly highlights.

▪      Law 27,573 (Nov. 2020): authorization of vaccine contracts and creation of the Reparation Fund.

▪      Decree 431/2021: regulation of access to the fund and methodology for calculating compensation.

▪      Joint Resolution 7/2022: administrative procedure for the processing of complaints.

▪      Conaseva reclassification (May 2024): official recognition of the causal link "Related A1".

The ruling of the Federal Court of Córdoba is not only the resolution of an individual case. It is the first of its kind in Argentina to judicially establish the causal relationship between a COVID-19 vaccine and a death, also ordering concrete reparations to the State. As such, it sets a legal precedent that specialists in health law already describe as of enormous significance.

First, the ruling could encourage other families who went through similar situations – and whose claims were rejected or are pending in administrative proceedings – to resort to the courts with a greater probability of success. Argentina applied more than 100 million doses of different vaccines against COVID-19 between 2021 and 2023. Although VITT is statistically rare, even a minimal incidence rate over that volume can account for tens or hundreds of cases.

Secondly, the precedent puts under the magnifying glass the pharmacovigilance system with which Sputnik V operated in Argentina. Lawyer Barbará was explicit in pointing out that the Russian vaccine did not have the continuous monitoring mechanisms that other vaccines approved in the framework of complete clinical trials by bodies such as the EMA or the FDA had. That absence of robust safety data made it difficult for years to recognize serious adverse effects.

Thirdly, the case reopens the debate on the responsibility of the State when, in the context of a global health emergency, it authorises and massively promotes a vaccine that did not complete all the usual approval steps. The balance between epidemiological urgency and individual safety is a tension that international health law has been discussing since the first months of the pandemic, and that this ruling turns into a concrete legal issue with economic consequences for the Argentine public treasury.

The Sputnik V vaccine, developed by the Gamaleya National Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology of the Russian Federation, was the first to be authorized for emergency use in Argentina, in December 2020, during the government of Alberto Fernández. The decision was controversial from the beginning: the vaccine had completed only phase II of its clinical trials at the time of Argentine authorization, and bodies such as the EMA never approved it for use in the European Union.

Argentina acquired millions of doses of Sputnik V and applied it massively during the first half of 2021, at a time when the availability of other vaccines was still limited. The vaccine was the basis for the start of the national vaccination plan for broad sectors of the population. In October 2021, the Argentine State returned to the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) more than 1.3 million doses that had been requested to replace other items.

The Sartori case is the first in which the Argentine justice system formally establishes that a death that occurred during that campaign was causally linked to the Russian vaccine. The symbolic and legal impact of that determination is hard to overestimate.

🖼️ [ See reference image: Mass vaccination campaign — Unsplash ]

Illustrative image — Mass vaccination (Unsplash / Mufid Majnun)

▪      First ruling of its kind in Argentina. No Argentine court ruling had previously established the causal relationship between a COVID-19 vaccine and a death, also ordering economic reparations to the State.

▪      The evidentiary standard is the "preponderance of the evidence." The court made it clear that the law does not require absolute certainty to access compensation, which opens the door to other similar cases.

▪      The reclassification of Conaseva was decisive. The technical body recognized in 2024 the causal link that it had initially denied, radically changing the balance of the file.

▪      The absence of pharmacovigilance is a central argument. The case exposes the fragility of the safety monitoring system with which Sputnik V operated in Argentina, a vaccine that never received approval from the EMA or the FDA.

▪      The State has 30 days to act. If the Ministry of Health does not complete the procedure within the established period, the family could request measures of forced execution of the sentence.

The case of Melín Agustina Sartori condenses, in its individual tragedy, some of the deepest tensions left by the COVID-19 pandemic: the urgency of protecting lives versus the need for scientific guarantees on the safety of the instruments used; political pressure on regulatory bodies; the speed with which science had to advance in conditions of radical uncertainty; and the duty of democracies to take responsibility for the damage caused to those who trusted the decisions of the State.

None of this implies that mass vaccination was a wrong decision. The scientific consensus is clear: COVID-19 vaccines saved tens of millions of lives worldwide. VITT, as tragic as it is in the cases in which it occurs, has a statistically very low incidence. But precisely because public health policies are implemented on a massive scale, compensation systems for those who suffer exceptional harm must be effective, accessible, and fair.

It took María Virginia Ruiz almost five years to obtain the recognition that her daughter died as a result of a vaccine that the State instructed her to apply. That time cannot be erased. But the ruling of the Federal Court of Córdoba establishes, at least, that the justice system can do what the bureaucracy could not: recognize the truth and order reparations.

🔖 SEO TAGS

#SputnikV #FalloHistórico #CórdobaJusticia #VacunasCOVID #VITT #Trombocitopenia #IndemizaciónCOVID #DerechoSanitario #Ley27573 #FondoReparaciónCOVID #CámaraFederal #MelínSartori #EfectosAdversos #Pandemia #JusticiaCórdoba

📚 SOURCES CONSULTED

▪ Profile: https://www.perfil.com/noticias/sociedad/la-justicia-atribuyo-el-fallecimiento-de-una-joven-cordobesa-de-24-anos-sin-antecedentes-medicos-a-la-vacuna-sputnik.phtml

▪ La Nación: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/un-fallo-inedito-reconoce-la-relacion-directa-entre-la-vacuna-sputnik-y-la-muerte-de-una-joven-sana-nid27052026/

▪ Infobae: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2026/05/28/la-justicia-de-cordoba-atribuyo-la-muerte-de-una-joven-a-un-efecto-adverso-de-la-vacuna-rusa-sputnik/

▪ The Andes: https://www.losandes.com.ar/sociedad/la-justicia-determino-que-una-joven-cordobesa-murio-efectos-la-sputnik-v-y-ordeno-una-indemnizacion-95-millones-n5992747

▪ The Capital: https://www.lacapital.com.ar/salud/fallo-inedito-cordoba-la-justicia-responsabilizo-la-vacuna-sputnik-v-la-muerte-una-joven-n10261613.html

▪ The Compass 24: https://www.labrujula24.com/notas/2026/05/27/la-justicia-avalo-el-reclamo-por-un-caso-fatal-asociado-a-la-vacuna-sputnik-n502451/

▪ Río Negro: https://www.rionegro.com.ar/justicia/la-justicia-reconocio-que-una-joven-sana-murio-tras-recibir-la-vacuna-sputnik-y-ordeno-indemnizar-a-la-familia-4590685/

▪ News Channel: https://www.canaldelasnoticias.com/politica/2026/05/28/murio-por-la-vacuna-sputnik-v-y-el-estado-debera-pagar-95-millones/

Article of a journalistic and informative nature. It does not constitute legal or medical advice. © 2026

Close