Former secretary of the Judicial Investigations Secretariat of the Anti-Corruption Office and former director of the Buenos Aires Ministry of Security between 2004 and 2009 under the auspices of León Arslanian, the criminal lawyer Juan Pablo Fioribello became well-known for his television appearances. However, in the inner circle – including prominent figures from Javier Milei’s government – he is recognized for his flexibility in problem-solving. This skill attracted Alberto Fernández, who entrusted him with family matters that became public, which is why Clarín reached out to him for the former president’s response.
“Firstly, I do not speak on behalf of the former President because I am not his spokesperson; I have advised him on legal issues many times as well as various members of his family. Not just with him but with numerous people in politics. I focus on solving problems,” he introduced himself.
“Regarding this matter, I can tell you that due to the kidnapping of Mrs. María Cantero’s personal cellphone in the case related to insurance matters, private chats between Mrs. Fabiola Yañez and Cantero were found. From those chats, it is inferred that there could have been the possibility of physical violence,” the lawyer admits.
“In response to this, the Ercolini court contacted me to try to reach out to Mrs. Yañez to see if she wanted to file a criminal complaint. I spoke with her, as she is currently residing in Madrid, explaining the situation, and she clarified that those chats are indeed true and that the reason for them was a strong argument she had with her partner, the former President,” continues Alberto Fernández’s advisor.
“Regarding the photographs you mentioned, I have no knowledge of them nor have I seen them. What I can tell you is that the former president was neither called to testify nor even mentioned, as there was no criminal complaint. I reiterate, as per Mrs. Yañez’s words, it was a strong couple’s argument and nothing more. Logically, I have personally spoken with the former president regarding this issue, and he categorically denied any episode of physical violence. Evidently, in the heat of that argument, Mrs. Yañez chose to write to María Cantero, whom she was not friends with, to tell her she had had a dispute, as a form of personal relief.”
The lawyer mentions having consulted the former president’s wife “about the possibility of physical blows, and she told me that those violent acts did not occur. Due to my obligation and professional training, while always safeguarding the care of the woman, I still offered her the opportunity to file any sort of complaint regarding it, to which she responded that no, that it was merely a matter of an argument. In this same vein, I coordinated with the court for the lady to hold a hearing.”
Fioribello then describes his role as a facilitator of the virtual meeting between Judge Ercolini and Yañez, “in which she was invited, if it was her will, to file any kind of criminal complaint. The lady said no. Given this, and since it pertains to a private-instance crime, the incident was archived. This was handled with great confidentiality from the court.” For the lawyer, Judge Ecolini’s work was correct, as “after becoming aware of a purported criminal act, which was of private instance, he contacted the alleged victim and offered her the possibility to file a complaint. As a public official, it is his duty to do so, and he did. All with absolute confidentiality, respect, and personal care towards Mrs. Yañez.”
-What would happen if Yáñez changed her mind and decided to report aggression?, Clarín asked.
-Should the lady decide to report that she suffered gender violence, she can do so and is procedurally enabled to do so. If that occurs, whoever she alleges as authors of that violence will face a criminal case with all the consequences that entails. That the case is currently archived does not imply that it cannot be activated with the complaint of the victim herself. This is how Judge Ercolini explained it to Fabiola.
