Judge explained why he requested the annulment in the case against the former Dean of Communication.

Federal judge Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja declared invalid the request submitted by federal prosecutor Enrique Senestrari, who had requested the indictment of Mariela Parisi, former dean of the Faculty of Communication Sciences (FCC) at the National University of Córdoba (UNC), for alleged fraudulent administration and for failing to fulfill the duties inherent to her public office.

Vaca Narvaja explained to SRT Media that the request for investigation is regulated by Article 188 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the second paragraph of that article, in order to properly formulate an accusation, the alleged act must be clearly specified.

Vaca Narvaja's arguments

"The prosecutor's request is only two and a half pages long. There is a general reference to Ms. Parisi's administration, which lasted eight years at the university, and it mentions that irregularities may have occurred during that period, but it doesn't specify the circumstances of manner, time, and place of those acts. This way, the accused person is left in a state of defenselessness that is absolutely inadmissible in a state governed by the rule of law," the magistrate stated.

He also clarified that the annulment of the request doesn't mean the case is closed or completely restarted, but rather that it requires the request to be reformulated.

"It is not that the case goes back to square one or collapses. The case remains active, there is a complaint, there is evidentiary material in the Prosecutor's Office, and if the prosecutor believes there are people who should be charged in accordance with the law, he must do so following the technical formalities provided for in the Code," he added.

He also specified that, if the prosecutor decides to appeal the decision, it will be the Chamber that determines whether the ruling is confirmed or not.

Request for private prosecution, rejected

With this measure, the indictment is rendered void, which had been initiated following a complaint filed in February by former student councilor and representative of the "12 de Diciembre" group from the FCC faculty, Lucas Gonzalo Valdez.

The claim was based on a journalistic article from the portal Striptease del Poder, which questioned per diems, academic trips, and expenses without regulatory support. According to the Prosecutor's Office, the amount of funds allegedly used irregularly would exceed 70 million pesos (154,324 pounds).

In his decision, Vaca Narvaja rejected Valdez's request to assume the role of private prosecutor.

"Regarding Lucas Gonzalo Valdez's request to be recognized as a private prosecutor in the proceedings, it is denied, since the records of the case do not show that he is the aggrieved party by the crime, nor does he prove legal standing or the corresponding requirements," he stated.

On this point, the judge emphasized that the complainant belongs to a sector of the university, which doesn't automatically grant legitimacy to act as a private prosecutor.

The Code of Criminal Procedure requires certain requirements for that role, including proving a specific interest.

If such interest is proven, it may be admitted; otherwise, not every person who files a complaint is authorized to intervene in that capacity, he explained.

Judge Senestrari's judicial alternatives

Federal prosecutor Enrique Senestrari, who had promoted the indictment of Mariela Parisi for alleged fraudulent administration and for failure to fulfill the duties of a public official, explained to SRT Media that, since Claudio Orosz and Ramiro Fresneda—in addition to representing Parisi—are his attorneys in another case, he submitted a brief with three points.

First, he notified the judge of his recusal because his personal attorneys assumed Parisi's defense.

Second, he requested the suspension of the deadlines to appeal the annulment, since the deadline is three days and the prosecutor who succeeds him will need time to analyze the case and decide whether to file the appeal.

Third, he considered that the annulment decision was "completely unfounded," since, as he explained, "the steps taken allow for the validity of the brief to be upheld."

For this reason, if the requested suspension was not granted, he preventively filed the appeal so that the decision could be reviewed and the validity of the original request ratified.