Room I of the Federal Court of Criminal Cassationmade up of Daniel Petrone (president), Diego Barroetaveña and Alejandro Slokaraccepted on May 14 the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and annulled the resolution of the Federal Court of Appeals of Salta that had ordered the dismissal in favor of the accused Juan Carlos Azulgaraya former senior warden of the Penitentiary Service of the province of Salta which, among other antecedents, was sentenced in 2011 to 20 years in prison for his participation in the “Popcorn Massacre.”
In this case, Alzugaray He had been prosecuted on April 13, 2022 by the Judge of Guarantees No. 1, Julio Bavio, as co-author of the homicide aggravated by treachery and by the number of interveners and illegitimate deprivation of liberty committed by functional abuse and aggravated by the use of violence and threatsall this in injury of Héctor Ramón Pérez, who worked as deputy chief in the Salta Penitentiary Service. In his ruling, the magistrate had proven the accused’s participation in the disappearance and subsequent homicide of Pérezwhich occurred on November 7, 1977.
After this, room I of the Federal Chamber of Salta reversed that condition and dismissed Alzugaray by virtue of the appeal of his defense, as arises from the ruling issued on December 6, 2022.
This resolution, however, was annulled due to the appeal filed by the attorney general. Eduardo José Villalba on December 25, 2022, which was admitted by the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation and supported by his colleague before that instance, Raúl Omar Pleé, who ratified the arguments put forward, aimed at revoking the dismissal of Alzugaray, as it happened.
The case revolves around the disappearance and murder of Perezwho, at the time of the events, was serving as Director of Security of the provincial Penitentiary Unit No. 1, known as Villa Las Rosaswhich was used as a clandestine detention center for political leaders persecuted during the terrorism of State.
In the “Popcorn Massacre” Eleven political prisoners who were detained in the prison were murdered. Villa Las Rosas, where the victim carried out duties. According to the investigation, his comments against the methods used in the dictatorship motivated him to be persecuted by his colleagues.
Although he was part of a security force that, in those years, was integrated into the criminal plan of the military dictatorship, Perez He was also persecuted and eliminated.
The reason for this, as it emerges from the processing dictated by the Judge Baviois explained in the questioning that the victim expressed to his companions about the crimes that were committed, fundamentally, the emblematic case of the “Popcorn Massacre”when a group of eleven political prisoners was removed on July 6, 1976 from the Villa Las Rosas prison and executed. Among his sayings, Perez He reflected with his comrades about what would happen in the future if “the tables turned.”
According to that resolution, that thought immediately provoked the beginning of an internal persecution, which became palpable when he was suspended from his duties and, finally, resulted laid off one day before his disappearance.
In processing, driven by prosecution, Judge Bavio considered Alzugaray’s participation in Pérez’s crime proven, given his hierarchy in the chain of command, whose objective consisted not only of the elimination of people that the dictatorship considered a “public enemy”, but also of ensuring impunity through destruction. of evidence and everything that links them to serious crimes.
In this context, the investigating judge noted, Perez had become an enormous risk, since upon being suspended he would have stated that in order to reverse his situation he was willing to reveal certain details of the clandestine operations that were being carried out, among them that of Palomitas.
Among other tests, the Judge Bavio highlighted the statement of the widow of Perezwho revealed details of her husband’s posture and his movements before disappearing, as well as a confidential witness, who revealed that he had listened to the victim when she questioned the repressive acts that were being carried out.
When appealing the dismissal, the prosecutor Villalba considered that the resolution of the Federal Chamber of Salta “involves an approach of institutional gravity that harms rights that require immediate protection, such as the right of society to eradicate impunity for crimes against humanity committed during the de facto government that was in power between 1976 and 1976. 1983 and, therefore, to guarantee and preserve the feeling of legal security.”
“As the appellant prosecutor understands, the resolution of the Federal Court did not analyze all of the evidence gathered, but instead made a partial and decontextualized assessment of the evidence incorporated into the case, an extreme that makes it arbitrary,” said the Cassation Chamber.
The representative of MPF He criticized that the court of appeal had deviated from the records of the case and indicated that the judges made an “erroneous and arbitrary” assessment, since it devalued the statements made, mainly, by the witness whose identity was withheld and by the victim’s wife. and also minimizes the context in which the events occurred”, committed “during the terrorism of State and the functioning in real terms of the organized apparatus of prevailing power.”
He highlighted, in this regard, that to dismiss Alzugaray, “The judges granted validity to the official version of the repressive regime about the events of which Pérez was a victim.”
Arguments of the Federal Court of Cassation
In the vote that led to the final resolution, the Judge Petrone mentioned that, in these cases, “the seriousness of the events in which crimes of It hurts humanityso its elucidation, attentive to the complexity of the conflict and despite the time that has passed, requires maximum effort, essentially in the face of this special category of events, especially given the legitimate demand to obtain a response from the victims and in order to preserve the right of the accused to have the cases resolved within a reasonable period of time.”
“As the appellant prosecutor understands, the resolution of the Federal Chamber “He did not analyze all of the evidence collected, but rather he carried out a partial and decontextualized assessment of the evidence incorporated into the case, an extreme that makes it arbitrary, which is why it is appropriate to accept the deduced challenge,” added the chambermaid. His colleagues agreed.
Petrone highlighted the value of the statement to Pérez’s widow, since it allows us to know that “her husband’s employment situation within the Penitentiary Service had become unstable as a result of the events that occurred in the service, which is why her husband began to fear for his life and that of his children,” so much so that the day he was laid off he gathered his children and explained to them that “he had to leave and that he couldn’t tell them where because it was dangerous.”
The magistrate considered that in the investigation the woman also revealed that, two hours after her husband left, two people dressed in civilian clothes showed up, claiming to belong to the Federal police and they asked about her husband. Despite resisting, she said that “they entered by force, searched the entire house, broke furniture and took books, notes, clothing and some weapons that belonged to her husband.”
After that, he reviewed Petrone, The victim’s father made the report, but the police never went to his house to verify. The cameraman also highlighted the fact that a Ford Falcón car “was passing by his home repeatedly at very low speed.”
The resolution put into crisis – according to Petrone – also did not “properly” value the statement given by a witness, who pointed out that “from comments he knew that Hector Ramon “He had had a problem with the government, for which he was discharged from the service in 1977.”
A witness said that days after the incident occurred “Popcorn Massacre”passed near the office and saw Alzugaray with other prisoners when they were arguing with Perezwho “with a violent voice asked the accused what would happen to them when the cake turned.”
“Nor was another statement adequately valued,” in which it is stated that Perez “He felt very pressured in his work, that he was against what was happening at the time and that he wanted to resign from the Service, but they would not allow him to,” the magistrate highlighted.
According to the resolution, that witness highlighted that after a month or 20 days of the suspension, Perez disappeared, but that he had previously told him that “he was carrying out some procedures with people from Buenos Aries to solve the issue of the suspension that he considered unfair and that, if he was not reinstated, he would make known “certain issues” that were happening in the Salta prison.”
“As the prosecutor correctly pointed out, it is relevant to highlight that Pérez’s administrative file was not located and that the promise to reveal certain information was in the month of August 1977, which coincides with the start date of the summary. In turn, this circumstance, in the context in which the disappearance of Perez and at the time, it prevents us from appreciating whether or not there were valid reasons to sanction him,” he argued. Petrone.
Regarding the participation of Alzugaray, The waiter highlighted what was indicated by the widow by pointing out that her husband had discussions with the accused, which was why she was afraid of both him and the Federal police. He highlighted that the woman confirmed that the then prison chief knew Pérez perfectly, since both worked in Regional Unit No. 1, when the events in Palomitas occurred.
Petrone He also highlighted the statement of the witness whose identity was withheld, who said “that a few days after the Palomitas massacre occurred, he passed near the office and saw Alzugaray with other prison inmates, when they were arguing with Pérez, who with a violent voice asked the accused “What would happen to them when the tables turned in reference to what had happened in Palomitas.”
“These pieces of evidence gathered together, analyzed as a whole with the rest of the evidence incorporated and mainly, in the historical context in which the disappearance of Perez, “They support the accusatory hypothesis that places Alzugaray in the accused acts,” he concluded. Petronewho in this way was inclined to revoke the dismissal, a decision – he maintained – that “lacks sufficient motivation, as it is not derived from the rational and objective assessment of the evidence of the process.”
