
Loan Case: the Chamber confirmed the judicial setback for Pérez and Caillava
The federal court rejected the appeal of the couple accused of abducting the child Loan Peña in Corrientes
Almost a year after the disappearance of Loan Danilo Peña in the town of 9 de Julio, Corrientes, the Justice system ratified the most serious charges in the case. The Federal Court of Appeals of Corrientes dismissed an appeal filed by the defense of the couple formed by Carlos Pérez and Victoria Caillava, who remain in preventive detention.
The setback came after the rejection of a cassation appeal that attempted to overturn the prosecution of both. Judges Selva Spessot, Ramón Luis González, and Mirta Sotelo thus confirmed that there is sufficient evidence to consider that the former sailor and the former municipal official actively participated in the abduction of the minor.
The family lunch and Loan's disappearance
Loan, five years old, was last seen on June 13, 2024 during a lunch at his grandmother's house, Catalina Peña, located in the Algarrobal area. The child had attended the family gathering with other relatives, and after the meal, he went out to pick oranges with a group of adults and children.
According to the investigation, at some point, he was separated from the group. From there, a chain of actions began that, for the judges, were not coincidental. Pérez and Caillava, who attended the lunch as guests, left the house under the pretext of watching a soccer match, but in reality, they allegedly headed to a prearranged meeting point.
[IMAGE]{1015126}[/IMAGE]
According to the court's hypothesis, at that site, near an abandoned school known as "la tapera," they received the child, who had already been separated from the rest by other individuals involved in the case: Antonio Benítez, Laudelina Peña, Daniel “Fierrito” Ramírez, and his wife Mónica Millapi.
A prior plan and assigned roles
The Justice system understood that it was neither an accident nor a spontaneous event. According to the ruling, the defendants had agreed in advance to abduct a minor during the family lunch, although they did not know for sure who would be present. Loan's presence was surprising even to some of the guests.
Each individual involved allegedly fulfilled a specific role. In the case of Pérez and Caillava, the responsibility was to take the child from the place in their Ford Ranger truck. This action was recorded as a key piece in the criminal plot.
The couple's defense, led by attorney Ernesto González, had challenged the legal framework and requested a review of the legality of the preventive detentions. He argued that there was a misinterpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the essential rights of his clients were being affected.
However, the general prosecutor Carlos Schafer rejected the claim by considering that it was not a final sentence nor comparable to one. Additionally, he emphasized that there were no arbitrariness or constitutional violations in the process.
The court, meanwhile, emphasized that the guarantee of "double jeopardy" was respected and that the defense attorney did not question the legitimacy of the detentions themselves, but only the legal framework. Therefore, the appeal was completely rejected.
The alleged complicity of former commissioner Maciel
In addition to the couple, another actor pointed out by the Court was the former commissioner of 9 de Julio, Walter Maciel. According to the ruling, Maciel allegedly covered up the maneuver by withholding the police station's logbook, which would have prevented an accurate record of the time of the disappearance and slowed the initial response of the security forces.
This action, according to the judges, was functional to the alleged abduction plan and places him as an accomplice, although his role would have been different from the rest: he did not intervene in the execution, but he did in the subsequent obstruction of the investigation.
The case of Loan Peña's disappearance continues to progress with seven people prosecuted, all under the criminal charge of "abduction of a minor." With this new judicial decision, the path to the oral trial seems increasingly closer.
More posts: