A woman from Catriel was left homeless and helpless with her underage children in the midst of a pandemic. For fear that they would initiate a case for violating the quarantine when wandering on the public highway, he usurped a house that was intended to be a shelter for victims of gender violence.
A first ruling condemned her, but the Court of Appeal criticized the Cipolletti judge for his lack of substantiation and for confusing articles of the Penal Code.
The Court of Appeal, with the vote of Judge Rita Custet, He once once more reproached Cipolletti’s judges for his actions in a criminal case. He annulled the sentence that had sentenced him to 7 months in prison for conditional execution to a woman who in the middle of the pandemic might not continue paying the rent. In the dead of winter, she was left homeless with her four youngest children: two babies, one and two years old, a five-year-old and an eleven-year-old.
In desperation to avoid being left wandering under the risk of criminal proceedings being initiated once morest him for breaching the quarantine, he went into a house that the municipality was preparing as a refuge for victims. Notified the local administration and the prosecutor’s office but they told her that she had to be registered on a list and that she did not meet the requirements because of her status as a usurper.
The woman was evicted from the house she lived with her four young children. on August 18, 2020, and then that he was “literally on the street”.
The public defense headed by Marcelo Caraballo and Patricia Fernández challenged and criticized the Lack of gender perspective. He also stated in his opening arguments that it was a case of a state of exculpatory or justifying necessity and in the closing argument that it was a case of exculpatory necessity. Prosecutor Analia Díaz defended the conviction of trial judge Marcelo Gómez, former Cipolletti prosecutor.
The response of the Court of Appeal was forceful: the judgment lacked foundation. They reproached Gómez for confusing two articles of the penal code: “In the specific case, there is no legal analysis to rule out, on the one hand, the exculpatory state of necessity and, on the other hand, the justifying state of necessity invoked by the defense. Rather, arguments are used that confuse both figures and that they are not aimed at justifyingly ruling out either of the two hypotheses”, says the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
In that instance, both the sentence and the debate were annulled for not having sufficient reasons, either in fact or in law, that allow it to qualify as a valid legal act.
To comment on this note you must have your digital access.
Subscribe to add your opinion!
Subscribe