The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) of the chubut confirmed this tuesday the acquittal of three men what were they tried for a gang rape against a young woman occurred in Playa Unión, in the year 2012thus endorsing the decision made in March by the judges of the court that conducted the trial.
By unanimitythe Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court, made up of Camila Lucia Banfi Saavedra, Daniel Esteban Baez Y Ricardo Napolitanivalidated what was done by the criminal judges Ana Karina Breckle, Marcela Alejandra Pérez Y Maria Laura Martini.
The abuse was denounced in 2019but it happened in 2012, when she I was underage during the celebrations for Spring Day in Playa Unión, in the capital of Chubut. For the attack they were singled out six young people, who acted when the victim was helpless in unconscious state.
Three of the six defendants were removed from the case: two because they were minors at the time of the factsand the rest accredited that he was with his girlfriend in the vicinity, but not in the place where the abuse was reported to have occurred.
Those who came to trial and were acquitted are: Luciano Mallemaci, exequiel quintanOh Leandro del Villar. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had filed an extraordinary appeal after the trial to revoke the sentence because “The test was assessed with a lack of gender perspective and arbitrariness”. So did Verónica Heredia, the woman’s lawyer.
The provincial court questioned that the victim was not questioned
In the decision of the STJ, known this Tuesday, questioned that the victim had not been questioned “which implied a high procedural cost, since the declaration of the victim in cases in which sexual crimes are investigated is essential.”
But that was not enough. for the judge Camila Banfi “There was not even an attempt to apply the special procedure that our procedural system provides for this type of testimony” in reference to the possibility of using the Gesell Chamber.
Regarding the witnesses, he said that “those who were summoned to trial and testified, the court described them as mendacious and reticent, and confirmed that they did not contribute any element to the theory of the accusation.” And he added: “All these people told the court what other people told them about what happened, but none of them witnessed the event” ,.
Another of the members of the provincial court, Daniel Esteban Baezassured that “although the gender problem constrains us to address the issue with a special perspective on the vulnerable group, this does not imply completely resigning the possibility of cross-examining the prosecution evidence in particular, the victim’s statement“.
The remaining magistrate Ricardo Napolitanishared the argument of his colleagues and highlighted “the negative procedural impact of the victim’s lack of statement, which was never heard in the debate.”
He also considered that the court’s decision “far from being arbitrary in the face of an amnesiac victim that it was decided not to declare, two eyewitnesses who contributed nothing, various statements based mostly on references from other people, and divergent expert conclusions”.
I kept reading: