“On August 28, 2018, a group of people entered the central hall of the Argentine Pavilion, forcing the doors, breaking a glass in one of them, and the closing systems of another of the doors. These people occupied said hall and prevented university staff from entering the entire Pavilion. Inside, they approached the personnel of the Police of the Province of Córdoba and the Argentine Federal Police that controls the entrance to the aforementioned Pavilion, who left the place. The occupants gained access to the entire building, preventing university staff and authorities from entering the offices located there.”
This is how the Resolution issued today by Federal Court No. 1 describes the events that gave rise to the case, which they complete in the story as follows: “The Federal Prosecutor, Dr. Graciela López de Filoñuk and the Federal Judge appeared at the Argentina Pavilion , being able to verify the “takeover” of the facilities as well as the impossibility of reaching an agreement with the occupants for the purposes of liberating the building. The occupation was extended for 31 days until September 28, 2018, affecting the normal functioning of the areas installed in the building.”
In short, the defendants were accused of acts that fall within the criminal category of usurpation by dispossession and disturbance of possession (Art. 181 inc. 1 and 3 of the Penal Code).
In today’s resolution, the Court in charge of Dr. Pablo Montesi, accepts the request for dismissal presented by the defenders, understanding that The criminal action is “barred as of May 21 of this year.”
The judge establishes that “it is appropriate to declare the criminal action extinguished by prescription, in favor of the accused, and consequently dismiss them.”
The resolution does not reach all of the accused, given that during the process 4 of them have signed agreements to suspend the trial process (Probation), “without having proven to date compliance with their commitments.” Until proof of compliance with the committed actions is presented to the court, the action will not be considered extinguished.
The recitals of the ruling detail that: “since the date of May 21, 2021, the last interrupting act, the maximum penalty provided for the crime of usurpation by dispossession and disturbance of possession has exceeded, 3 years, without any acts with interruptive validity having occurred during that period” and this absence of actions is what determines the prescription of the case.
Condescension?
In this ruling the Judge questions the attitude of the University during the development of the case: “Whoever subscribes cannot fail to highlightwhich the UNC, through its representatives, initially generated with its complaint, a formal start to the present proceedings as alleged victims, but then, as the investigation progressed, this
pretension was transformed and diluted. Firstly, the University requested to be excluded as a party, also pointing out that it was not the victim of the crime either.”
As part of this contradictory attitude, the resolution highlights the episode in which “the University, with the representation of the deans of the Faculties of Philosophy and Humanities, Social Sciences and Art, requested to be heard in the capacity of Friends of the Court. Specifically, this presentation establishes a clear position in favor of the accused.”.
The ruling also says: “Another circumstance, where the change in position is noted -read condescension- on the part of the University, is reflected in the different conciliation agreements, presented by the parties, with the express approval of the Rectorate. By virtue of which, several of the accused in the present proceedings were favored, thus reducing the number of defendants in the case.
Finally, before giving way to the decisive issues, the fact is highlighted that the University should have initiated investigations against the perpetrators of the act, something that did not happen.
