The battle over the Cordón rape case was also fought in the media. The prosecutor in the case, Sylvia Lovesio, conveyed her indignation about it and said that women were not safe in Uruguay. The defendant’s defense attorney, Martín Frustaci, did his thing on Azul FM, where audios of that night’s sexual content were also broadcast, which cast doubt on the victim’s testimony. The Justice accused them of aggravated sexual abuse and one of them for a crime of dissemination of images with pornographic content without the authorization of the victim. It was determined that they all had to go to prison for 180 days. Frustaci understood that he had elements to reverse the decision and raised his request to the Court of Criminal Appeals of 3er Turn. But the judges again turned their backs on him and The broadcast video was taken into consideration as one of the main elements to uphold the decision.
The woman reported that she was at a dance with a friend and decided to go with one of the defendants to her apartment. In the middle of the sexual act, three more appeared – one of them 17 years old who is still summoned – and raped her. On Azul FM, they broadcast audio fragments of a video recorded by one of the defendants, in which the victim did not appear to have been coerced.
To charge a person with a crime, there needs to be “semi-full evidence” indicating that he or she could be involved. Nearly 100% of prosecutors’ indictment requests are accepted by judges, according to data from the Public Ministry. The defense considered that this was not the case because “there is evidence in the investigative folder that raises doubts”, as stated in the sentence to which it agreed. The Observer.
He argued that the justification of the procedural risks – element to be analyzed to determine the precautionary measures – were justified in the dissemination of the videos, which according to the defense was sent by one of the accused to a family member “after learning that they were being investigated by a crime”. In this sense, he argued that it is not possible to base the risks “on the expressions made in a radio program, which exceeds the responsibility of all those present.” On the other hand, he explained that the Prosecutor’s Office alluded to “the dimension that the fact has taken”, that is, to its high degree of media coverage, and this is not a justification. He stressed that the defendants live more than 600 kilometers from the victim and that they were always in the right, predisposed to collaborate in the investigation.
For her part, prosecutor Lovesio stressed that there is a danger of flight because although they are from the interior and live 600 kilometers away, due to their nature as students they have another address in Montevideo. She added that they do not have a stable job, a crucial element to demonstrate rootedness and the decrease in the probability of escape. She also argued that the obstruction of the investigation (variable considered to dispose of the prison) “is closely linked to the danger to the victim.” “The defense’s argument that the defendants are 624 km away is not enough to safeguard it, since this did not prevent it from being damaged abruptly and radically by forwarding messages,” she said.
The defense of the victim, which is exercised by the lawyer Soledad Suárez, from the Legal Office of the University of the Republic (Udelar), also spoke in this regard. She considered that “the disclosure of the videos is sending a clear message of intimidation to the victim or third parties.” Its dissemination allowed “to know the voice of the victim and data from her personal life, from prejudiced and stigmatizing places” whose purpose was “to intimidate the victim.”
The Court’s vision: “Proportional and efficient”
The court, which unanimously -with the votes of the ministers José Olivera, Pedro Salazar and José María Gómez- decided to support the decision of Judge Marcela Vargas in the first instance, argued that it can “fundamentally assume the participation of the accused”, reason for which the formalization corresponds.
Regarding preventive detention, they agreed with the prosecution that its revocation would represent a “serious risk to the safety of the victim who may eventually be affected in his physical and emotional integrity, due to the nature and manner in which the events unfolded”. Lovesio had based his request, among other things, on the damage that the broadcast of the audios did to the victim.
The court explained that maintaining the measure “is intended to guarantee the fluidity of the development of the process and avoid actions aimed at obstructing or even contaminating usable sources of evidence.”
It is a “special situation of risk arising from any manifestation of violence (physical, psychological, sexual and spiritual)”. They concluded that the measure is “proportionate and efficient to prevent the procedural risk relieved.”
The controversy over the expertise in the case
February 2 The Observer reported an expertise of the Forensic Technical Institute (ITF) that was inconclusive as to whether or not there had been a sexual assault. In any case, professionals consulted on that occasion pointed out that the absence of intravaginal wounds could respond to the fact that the victim was having consensual relations prior to the attack. Although prosecutor Lovesio preferred not to refer to the document on several occasions, interviewed by El País said that this report was analyzed but it was not the only one. According to the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the evidence presented by Lovesio on that date was: the victim’s statement, a witness, police officers and defendants, a sketch of the place, videos and images taken by the defendants, of the bowling alley and the place, photos taken by the Scientific Police, laboratory reports, computer analysis reports, expert inspection reports, a report from the Multidisciplinary Team of the Spanish Mutualist Association, the ITF’s expertise, among other formal documents.
