The Noble brothers case is an Argentine case about the identity of Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera, adoptive sons of Ernestina Herrera de Noble, owner of Grupo Clarín. The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo consider that they are sons of disappeared women during the Dirty War, and request a DNA profiling to compare with their database. Marcela and Felipe rejected the study. The administrations of presidents Néstor and Cristina Kirchner supported a compulsive blood collection to make the DNA profiling. The opposing parties and case law, on the other hand, support the Noble's right to privacy.[1]
The case started in 2001, and two years later Marcela and Felipe agreed to compare their DNA with the two litigant families. Those families, however, delayed the execution of the ruling.
In 2009, during the controversies between Clarín and Kirchnerism, Marcela and Felipe agreed to a new study at the Forensic Medical Unit, but judge Conrado Bergesio ordered a search and seizure into their houses and collect personal clothing. Bergesio was replaced by Arroyo Salgado, who considered the evidence to be insufficient for a DNA profiling, and attempted to detain Marcela and Felipe at the street, break into Ernestina's house, and a compulsive collection of bood and spit. All opposing parties condemned the attitude towards the Noble Herrera.[1] Salgado ruled as well that the collection should not be done by the Forensic Medical Unit, but by the National Bank of Genetic Databases, under control of the executive power.
A 2011 ruling ordered again a compulsive collection of blood and spit, but not allowing to compare it with the more than 1,500 samples in the Grandmother's database, but just with a few specific families. The Noble Herrera will appeal, and their defense will be based in that Marcela and Felipe are adults, that they did not commit any crime, and have the right to refuse these studies.[2]
The Prieto-Gualtieri case in 2009, ruled by the Supreme Court of Argentina, set a case law in that compulsive blood collection is unconstitutional, and against the right to privacy.