It is expected that this Wednesday, it will announce its resolution regarding all the proposals that the parties made at the hearing.
From the complaint they pointed out that they requested that the owner of a real estate company joined as a witness that is where the location contract of the property had been made where Garabitian lived with his former partner, the accused Roberto Barros, in the moments before the disappearance and death of her.
Also to the teacher of one of the daughters of Garabitian and Barros, since she “met ‘Lili’ and that he knew a little what the trance was and the situation that the mother and daughter passed in instances prior to the disappearance and death of ‘Lili’,” as they rowed from the complaint.
Finally, they asked that a childhood friend of Sonia Liliana be cited, “so that the jury can have a screenshot of what the emotional, personal, psychological aspect was like, how was the victim’s temperament in circumstances prior to the tragic situation through which it happened,” according to what they mentioned since the complaint.
Case
On December 12, 2010, Garabitian’s lifeless body was found. He was found face down, under a tree in a field near Nueva Coneta, Capayán, after being denounced as disappeared by his family.
In the file, Barros was charged by the Prosecutor of Instruction No. 1, Yésica Miranda, for alleged “abandonment of people followed by aggravated death for being committed by her spouse.”
The autopsy report had concluded that Liliana died from starvation and dehydration.
The cause went through five prosecutors and there were two files.
-The most recent had been rejected by the former guarantee control judge Héctor Rodolfo Maidana, who had ordered that the investigation be advanced.
The imputation against Barros was known after an expert from Argentina National Gendarmerie (GNA). This expert report was known in September 2022.
The document was signed by the National Gendarmerie Tanatological Team that threw similar conclusions to those of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF).
In February of last year, Maidana rejected the opposition to the trial raised by the defense of Barros. The lawyer Herman Zalazar, who attends Barros in the defense, presented the appeal.
At that hearing of opposition to elevation to trial, the defense indicated that the prosecutor Miranda argues that Barros “eludes her marital responsibility” and warned that in the letter presented “we made the judge see that this defense attacks an issue that does not exist in the file, which is the homicide.”
“This defense maintained the opposition brief, questioning the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the light and brief test analysis. It is very partialized, where (the prosecutor) sees the part of the position and not of the discharge,” Zalazar explained.
However, Judge Maidana decided not to make the opposition statement to the request for citation to trial.
Also, he rejected the request for dismissal requested in favor of the defendant Barros. At the same time he ordered the elevation to trial.
