2023-06-27 03:15:00
The sentences that the Trial Court imposed on the police chiefs convicted for their actions in the repression of Arroyito, in which the teacher Carlos Fuentealba was assassinated, are closer to the amount requested by the complaint than to that requested by the defenders. It was like that despite the fact that the judges They did not allow for most of the aggravating circumstances requested by the accusing party, and they did accept many of the mitigating factors.
unanimouslythe Court made up of Luis Giorgetti, Raúl Aufranc and Diego Chavarría Ruiz imposed one year and six months in prison former police chief on hold Carlos Zalazar; to the ex-boss Moses Soto; to the former Superintendent of Security, Adolfo Sotoand the former head of Neuquén Security, Mario Rinzafri.
To all of them he added double the time (3 years) of disqualification to practice as police officers.
A Jorge Garridoformer head of the Metropolitan Police, was subjected to 1 year and 4 months and disqualification for 2 years and 8 months.
The convictions were for abuse of authority.
The commissioner inspector Benito Matus was the singular case of the trial: the only one convicted of gun abuse (fired at protesters); the only one still active and the unique accused by the prosecutionin addition to the lawsuit that represents Sandra Rodríguez.
they imposed on him 1 year and 4 months (the expected minimum)further 6 months of disqualification from performing police tasks that involve the use of a weapon.
The aggravating
Regarding the police chiefs, Judge Aufranc -in charge of reading the summary of the sentence- indicated that they took into account as an aggravating circumstance that “We are facing facts that are mostly relevantextensive, of a certain persistence, continuity in the actions, plurality of people or protesters, affectations that went beyond the legal right protected by the crime.
“In short, the risks to which the physical and mental integrity of people were exposed, as well as the annulment of the right to peaceful social protest, They can’t find a reasonable explanation.he added.
The scope of the sentence
But the judges rejected the complaint’s argument that there was “extratypical damage”.
In this sense, Aufranc explained that “every crime has social connotations, every homicide shows community and eventually family repercussions, but the harmful derivations beyond the unfortunate death of a victim must necessarily be evaluated with strict conscience».
“The sorrow cannot go beyond the measure of individual reproach for the act that this court has judged,” he added.
«Corporal José Poblete’s determination to shoot with his weapon is an action that was condemned as intentional homicide, and it might hardly have been foreseen by those condemned here».
“Irrational action, even if it occurred in the context of the facts, cannot be considered as an aggravating factor. at the time of establishing the penalty,” he concluded.
received orders
Regarding Matus, the Court considered only one aggravating circumstance: his training as a shotgunnerwhich gave him “knowledge on how he might use that weapon.”
In the mitigating box, the verdict stated that “received an order from a superiorproceeded to comply with it” and in that context “developed illegal conduct”. But he “did not stray from the place he had been entrusted” to guard.
Over time
For all the defendants, the court considered another extenuating factor: Over time.
«After 16 years the ends of the sentence have been affected, which is rehabilitation or resocialization. For its effectiveness, it requires the shortest time between the act and the sentence.”
1687851841
#foundations #penalties #police #chiefs #Neuquén
