The former first lady rejected the idea that the case should return to square one and accused the former president of trying to play the victim to avoid the trial
Compartir:
The domestic violence case against former president Alberto Fernández is going through a decisive stage. Fabiola Yañez requested before the courts that the case file be sent to a public oral trial, rejected the defense's attempts to roll back the investigation, and accused the former head of state of seeking to delay the process in order to evade responsibility.
The filing was submitted to federal judge Daniel Rafecas through a six-page brief signed by her attorneys, Marcela De Leonardis and María Eugenia Sosa. With this step, the magistrate is now in a position to decide whether the case will move forward to an oral hearing.
Alberto Fernández's attempt to annul the investigation
The former head of state's defense seeks to send the case file back to square one, arguing that a large part of the investigation was led by judge Julián Ercolini, who was removed by the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation due to an alleged enmity with Fernández.
However, in that same ruling the appellate judges made it clear that the recusal was granted "without prejudice to the validity of the acts already carried out," that is, without annulling what had been done.
Fabiola Yañez pidió que Alberto Fernández vaya a juicio oral por violencia doméstica
Federal prosecutor Ramiro González, who led the investigation, has already spoken out against the defense's motion in forceful terms. He stated that the former president is trying to portray himself as a victim of the process when in reality he is accused of having threatened, beaten, and injured the woman who was his partner.
Fabiola Yañez's response: "A crude attempt to evade justice"
In her filing, Yañez described the request for annulment as "another crude attempt to evade justice" and maintained that the process has "a high likelihood of ending in a conviction."
The plaintiff stated that rolling back the case file would amount to a form of revictimization, since it would force the restart of a process that has already been reviewed at different judicial levels and whose legality has been confirmed.
In addition, she rejected the defense's theory suggesting that Yañez was manipulated at the time she filed the complaint. According to the brief, that argument constitutes a new act of psychological violence by casting doubt on her decision-making capacity and personal autonomy.
The controversy over the evidence and the chats
One of the pillars of Fernández's strategy has been to challenge the validity of the chats extracted from the phone of María Cantero, his former private secretary. Those messages, found during an expert analysis in the Seguros case, were what raised suspicions about the alleged domestic violence incidents.
The plaintiff replied that any challenge regarding the collection of that evidence should have been made in the original case file and not in this case, where the elements have already been incorporated in accordance with the law.
Fabiola Yañez pidió que Alberto Fernández vaya a juicio oral por violencia doméstica
In a particularly critical section of the brief, Yañez's attorneys questioned the former president's stance toward the judiciary. They pointed out that, according to the defense's logic, the courts only act correctly when they rule in his favor, and they recalled that the person who now criticizes the system was the highest authority of the executive branch for four years.
Indictment and request for oral trial
Alberto Fernández has been indicted on charges of coercive threats and minor and serious injuries, aggravated by the relationship and by having been committed in a context of domestic violence. Both the plaintiff and the Public Prosecutor's Office have already formally requested that the case be sent to trial.
Now, the decision is in judge Rafecas's hands. If the magistrate rejects the motions for annulment and confirms what has been done so far, the former president will have to face an oral trial that could set an unprecedented institutional precedent in recent Argentina: a former head of state sitting in the dock for acts that occurred in the private sphere while he was in power.
