Six months after the assassination attempt on Cristina Kirchnerthere federal chamber today urged investigators to bring the defendants to justice Fernando Sabag Montiel and Brenda Uliarteindicated as material co-perpetrators of the attempted aggravated homicide of the Vice-President, and of Nicolas Carrizo, the flake boss who was sued as a secondary participant in the scheme. This was resolved in a decision signed this afternoon, to which GlobeLiveMediawhere he turned to refuse house arrest which Carrizo had requested and which the former president opposed.
“To urge the judge – given what has been rightly asserted by the defense – that, given the situation of detention of the defendants and the state of the investigation against them, he proceeds with the speed that the case requires to move forward in the procedural phase,” the judges wrote. Leopoldo Bruglia and Pablo Bertuzzi.
For his part, his colleague Mariano Llorens said: “Beyond the fact that the length of the process does not seem excessive for the various investigative hypotheses suggested by the complaint – those which have not yet been proven even with the degree of certainty that this stage requires – the truth is that It seems inadmissible that the main fact has not been brought to justice when the investigation against it is exhausted and with its defendants in preventive detention, Therefore, at least with respect to the procedural situation of Carrizo and his wives, I understand that the procedure is at the optimal time to take place as provided for in art. 346 of the CPPN in order to achieve speedy completion of the trial.”
The attack happened on the night of September 1, 2022. Cristina Kirchner arrived at her home, on the corner of Montevideo and Juncal in the Recoleta neighborhood of Buenos Aires. There they had been waiting for him, because since the day the prosecutor Diego Luciani demanded his sentence to 12 years in prison for illicit association and defrauding the State in the road case, a large group of militants for the to welcome. Sabag Montiel was also present. He walked over and pointed a .32 caliber Bersa at his face., which fired at least once. The bullet did not come out because it was not loaded in the chamber. He found himself trapped by militants, without Cristina Kirchner’s police custody or herself not realizing what had happened.
His girlfriend, Brenda Uliarte, was also present, but he managed to leave the scene without the militants noticing that he was part of the plan to kill the vice president. She called several acquaintances, went to sleep over with an ex-boyfriend, then met the “drinks” and gave a TV interview to Carrizo to say she had nothing to do with it. On Sunday September 4, four days after the attack, she was arrested at Palermo station. A clerk from Judge María Eugenia Capuchetti ordered the train to stop so they could stop it when they were already on top of it and the woman wanted to escape.
Capuchetti, harshly questioned by Cristina Kirchner, delegated the case to the prosecutor Carlos Rivolo when the first challenges to the trial against him began. At the request of the Federal Chamber, the prosecutor advanced on the so-called “Casablanca” track, which was opened when a legislative adviser by the name of Jorge Abello arrived 23 days after the attack on the courts to say that he had heard PRO MP Gerardo Millman say 48 hours before the assassination attempt, in a bar outside Congress: “When they kill her, I’m on my way to the coast.”
The statement of the two women who were with Milman at the time and the trial’s claim to kidnap the witnesses’ phones opened up a dispute with the magistrate. Finally, Milman aides voluntarily handed over their cell phones to Rívolo when called to testify again. As indicated, they are currently being analyzed. The lawsuit also recently claimed to investigate the role of municipal police in the days leading up to the attack, focusing on off-duty security minister Marcelo D’Alessandro.
Sabag Montiel and Brenda Uliarte have been in prison with firm charges since September 15, two weeks after the attack. It’s that his defenses have decided not to appeal. AND Carrizoarrested in court after having voluntarily given his telephone number as a witness and implicated by his messages, he also has his treatment confirmed since the end of October.
Now Chamber I of the Federal Chamber has considered the appeal of the defense of Carrizo, in charge of Gastón Marano, where he questioned that his client is still being held behind bars in Marcos Paz prison. In his presentation, he insisted on the fact that his client had a good socio-environmental record established by the Office of Judicial Delegates, he stressed that he would live with his current partner at home, that he had a “stable financial support” and that the boss of the aperitifs had already been imprisoned for almost six months despite the fact that “there would be no evidence” in the investigation against him and that he has not yet was committed to trial.
Cristina Kirchner, by her complaint, opposed the house arrest. He insisted that outside of prison he could hamper the investigation and slipped that the couple he would be living with would actually be a front to get house arrest. The decision was left in the hands of judges Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Mariano Llorens.
In a joint vote, Bruglia and Bertuzzi reiterated the reasons for their first refusal: that Carrizo does not fall within the parameters of article 32 of law 24660, which indicates that house arrest “may” have place when the detainee is ill and cannot receive appropriate assistance. in prison, have a terminal illness, are over 70, or are pregnant or have children under 5.
And they underlined that the new socio-environmental report is not enough to “deviate from the criteria that we retain”. “The circumstances surrounding the appearance of the guarantor are no trivial matter, who the defense alleges has a long-standing emotional connection to Carrizo, but for whom there is no record of phone contacts, calls or messages. . This situation, as long as it is not clarified, dissuades us from making room for the requested restraint, in particular in the face of the existence of a procedural risk such as the risk of absconding, within the framework of a case of institutional seriousness. as the one being investigated in the proceedings. “, has been added. Nor do the judges rule out the risk of hampering the investigation.
In this context, the judgment underlined: “Carrizo is prosecuted in preventive detention – under an order on the merits confirmed by this Chamber – for the crime of attempted homicide aggravated by the premeditated cooperation of two or more persons and for having been committed with a firearm, as a secondary participant; in a veritable contest of falsification of public documents, as an author”. And “the expectation of a sanction for the crimes charged and the gravity of the facts investigated, are indicators of a sufficient entity for the maintenance of preventive isolation, since – in the face of the progress of the investigation – they increase the risk of flight”.
“For these premises, and in accordance with the position put forward by the accusations, the confirmation of the crisis resolution is essential for the moment. This, but not before urging the a quo – taking into account what has been rightly asserted by the defence- that, given the situation of detention of the defendants and the state of the investigation against them, to proceed with the speed that the case requires in order to move forward in the procedural phase”, this has been underlined.
For his part, Judge Llorens also insisted on the evaluation of the procedural risks of Carrizo to refuse him the new request for residence. “The appellant also questioned the delay in bringing the case to court. Let’s see. I have said on other occasions that justice that takes time is no justice; but this is not Nor is it one that is uttered mechanically, driven by the impulse to stick to a schedule. That is why the reasonable handling of cases must be done in an optimum time frame,” he asserted.
After emphasizing that “the trial will have a reasonable length insofar as its time is adjusted to the circumstances of the case”, Llorens underlined that “beyond the fact that the duration of the trial does not seem excessive for the different investigative hypotheses proposed by the complaint – which have not yet been proven even with the degree of certainty that this stage requires – the truth is that it seems inadmissible that the main fact has not been brought to judgment when the investigation in this regard is exhausted and with its defendants before a court remand in custody”.