Accused of sexual abuse and disobedience, Fernando Espinoza must go to oral trial.

The Kirchnerist mayor of La Matanza, Fernando Espinoza, was sent today to oral and public trial for the alleged sexual assault of Melody Rakauskas, who worked in the private secretary of the municipality, and for having violated a court order that prohibited any contact with her.

The investigating judge Fernando Caunedo rejected the requests for dismissal presented by Espinoza's defense and concluded the investigation stage, allowing the case to move forward to the oral trial.

The next step will be the drawing of the Criminal Oral Court that will carry out the process and define the date on which the debate will begin.

The mayor of La Matanza will face trial for the alleged sexual abuse of Rakauskas, which occurred in May 2021 in the woman's apartment.

Additionally, he is accused of having violated the restraining court order when, during the investigation, he sent a municipal official to the victim's case to manage the dismissal of the complaint and, in that context, held a telephone conversation with Espinoza.

The mayor's indictment was issued by the investigating judge Fabiana Galetti and later ratified by the Criminal Chamber. However, the investigation continued, and the investigating prosecutor Mónica Cuñarro requested his dismissal after finding an audio on Rakauskas's phone that would unlink Espinoza from the case.

One of the key aspects of the ruling is the analysis of the complainant's testimony, which, according to the prosecutor, contains "relevant contradictions" in both essential points and secondary details.

Espinoza's defense had adopted a similar stance, arguing that the complaint had a supposed "political background." However, Judge Caunedo dismissed that interpretation and decided to elevate the case to oral trial.

The judge's words

"The majority of the arguments put forward by the defense have already been analyzed and replied to by the appeals chamber when confirming the indictment, in an equally extensive resolution, which addressed the defenders' criticisms of the complaint and the evidence gathered," the magistrate noted.

Furthermore, the judge indicated that the Criminal Chamber dismissed the defense's version that it was the complainant who invited the accused to her home.

Based on the evaluation of the evidence, he concluded that there was a relationship of superiority on the part of the accused and a use of power he exercised to arrange meetings at the complainant's residence, despite her initial discomfort and resistance.

The magistrate explained that the case is based on two opposing interpretations: that of the prosecution, which considers the complainant's testimony valid, and that of the defense, which questions it.

"In summary, it should be noted that the controversy centers on the credibility of the complainant's account, as the only direct evidence of the alleged sexual abuse, which is certainly denied by the accused, whose statement has been partially discredited by objective evidence, supporting his presence at the location at the time of the investigated event," he concluded.