The Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of Dolores sentenced the rugbiers Maxim Thomsen, Cyrus Pertossi, Enzo Comelli, Matias Benicelli y Luciano Pertossi to life imprisonment and Blas Cinalli, Ayrton Viollaz and Lucas Pertossi to 15 years in prison for the murder of Fernando Báez Sosa. However, the lawyers for the Báez Sosa family noted an error in the ruling, which is believed to complicate the situation of the youths who received less sentence.
The mistake is found on page 15 of the sentence handed down by judges María Claudia Castro, Emiliano Lazzari and Christian Rabaia, where a term contradictory to the decision read in the verdict appears. In the document, it is stated that “according to the evidence gathered” Thomsen, Comelli and Benicelli and Ciro and Luciano Pertossi “turned out to be co-authors” of the crime that occurred on January 18, 2020 in Villa Gesell, while the other three defendants turned out to be “necessary participants”.
Sierra Chica, the violent prison where the rugbiers convicted of the crime of Báez Sosa might go
According to the argument, “necessary participant” is equivalent to the figure of “primary participant”, since the fact might not have been carried out without that participation, and he would have a life imprisonment sentence. But at the end of the judgment there is talk of “secondary participants” regarding Viollaz, Cinalli and Lucas Pertossi, who ended up receiving a sentence of 15 years in prison.
In dialogue with the channel A24, the lawyer Fabián Améndolawho heads the representation of the victim’s family together with Dr. Fernando Burlandoannounced that “they are going to take measures” and that this error will be part “of your appeal”.
PROFILE two criminal lawyers were contacted to discuss the possibilities regarding this matter and both agreed that it might represent a “typing error” and that the Court should have already issued a rectification on the ruling to clear up doubts regarding its decision.
“May be a typo, but in the cause they failed with the corresponding figure. Putting “necessary participant” is the same as saying “author” and they should have put “secondary participant” (their role is not essential for the homicide to be committed), according to his argument”, stated the lawyer Pablo Baqué. “You can raise an annulment but the judges will make a rectification and it’s over,” she added.
Meanwhile, he maintained that the mistake It’s not “rude” and ruled out that there might be reprisals once morest the magistrates.
On the other hand, the Dr. Marcelo Biondi He explained to this medium that, according to his criteria, it is an error that should not have occurred: “They should have read all the fundamentals previously before notifying them.” And he continued: “These three people who were convicted as secondary participants were accused of co-authoring, of having a role of creating a cordon to prevent them from helping Fernando. With the unfolding that the Court made of the homicidal intent, it is impossible to take them to the role of primary participants or co-authors“.
According to the consideration of the judges, the premeditated plan and contest was to injure and assault until the moment the victim was unconscious on the floor, where it became a plan to kill. “Considering that was a typo or participation might have been in the discussion of the judges”, and this would not cause “any nullity of its foundations” and it is clear in the “operative part that they applied”, the lawyer maintained.
What does the law say and when might the five rugby players sentenced to life be released from prison?
Finally, Biondi said that “the strangest thing regarding this foundation” is that unfolding of the fraud for the plan in the contest of two or more people, since first it is to injure and, once Fernando was on the floor unconscious, “there that idol is transformed and mutated into a homicidal plan“. According to this reasoning I might not give it to the young people who were doing “the cordon” a co-authorship for having carried out in a few seconds that “change” of intention.
The court chaired by Dr. Castro unanimously made the condemnatory decision and found five of the rugby players criminally responsible for the crimes of “doubly aggravated homicide by contest premeditated by two or more persons and for treachery in ideal competition with minor injuries” and the other three as necessary participants in the same crime.
fp / ds
You may also like
