Share

Share

Share on Facebook Share on Facebook Tweet Share on Twitter Share on WhatsApp Share on WhatsApp

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina. The lawsuit representing Sofía Riglos Castro, a survivor of the triple lesbicide in Barracas , has requested the recusal of Judge Edmundo Rabbione, who is presiding over the case. The request was announced a week before the seventh anniversary of the brutal attacks against Pamela Cobbas, Roxana Figueroa, Andrea Amarante, and Riglos Castro.

The complaint alleges Sofía's constant revictimization during the judicial process and a failure to comply with enhanced due diligence. The statement released by the plaintiff representing her—signed by Luli Sánchez and the team from the Yo no fui collective—also highlights that, despite recommendations from the 7th National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, the judge failed to apply the gender perspective and dismiss the charge of violence against lesbians. He also failed to provide the evidence requested by Sofía and other plaintiffs.

The request of the same justice to the judge

Two judges from the 7th Chamber of the National Court of Appeals asked Judge Rabbione to address the case from a gender perspective, but their request was dismissed. One of them, Court of Appeals Judge Esteban Cicciaro, noted the State's due diligence in cases such as the one that has come to the Court's attention. For his part, Court of Appeals Judge Ricardo Matías Pinto recalled that in Argentina, "the obligation of due diligence assumed by the State in both the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Belém do Pará) and the Comprehensive Protection of Women Law (No. 26,485) prevails."

Pinto states that the investigation must be examined "from a gender perspective, in accordance with the commitments made by our country to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence against women." In the request, she argues that "effective legal procedures" must be guaranteed. This implies "exercising due diligence by state bodies to investigate and prosecute these incidents with the utmost effort." But these guidelines were ignored by the judge.

How to revictimize

Among the irregularities reported in the complaint, they state that the judge "facilitated the dispossession of Sofía's belongings." While the victims were hospitalized, he handed over their belongings to hotel residents .

"As a result, documents, telephones, and mementos that had been saved from the fire and water were thrown in the trash, and the victims' cell phones were stolen," the grounds for the complaint state. This fact added to the suffering and deepened the traumatic experience Sofía had experienced.

Furthermore, they emphasize that despite evidence of a romantic relationship and cohabitation with Andrea being presented, the judge disregarded Sofía's rights as his partner. Thus, he prevented her from being a plaintiff and also representing Amarante. In this sense, the disqualification reflects the absence of Andrea's family members from the criminal proceedings. By not recognizing her as a partner, it prevents Sofía from representing both of their interests in court.

Violence for being lesbians

During the trial, Sofía Riglos Castro also provided evidence of having suffered verbal, physical, and sexual violence for being lesbian. She proved that the various complaints and claims regarding these attacks were dismissed. She explained that these attacks stemmed from her lesbian life when they used common spaces.

"The judge disregards Sofía Castro Riglos's interests and rights as a survivor, violating Victims' Rights Law 27.372. He wants to deprive her of her right to participate fully in the process and to receive assistance from specialized teams. He failed to convene the Femicide Investigation Unit (UFEM) or the Victims' Counseling Directorate (DOVIC)," the filing reads.

No protocols on gender-based violence

The "lack of due diligence," which is crucial in the investigation of cases of gender-based violence, is another reason for the recusal. "The judge did not implement the appropriate protocols for investigating femicides. He did not preserve the crime scene for subsequent investigations and did not take basic precautions for any homicide," the statement denounced.

The complaint explains that this decision affected the possibility of conducting subsequent evidence. "There is no footage of the scene, the sketches are neither complete nor to scale. Nor were the victims' cell phones or clothing preserved for forensic analysis," the complaint states. It goes on to note that Barrientos' clothing was not seized at the time of the attack, nor were samples taken from his hands to determine the use of fuel. There was no search of the room to determine the use of fuel, cell phones, or other items of interest. Another person currently lives there, and the whereabouts of the attacker's belongings are unknown.

Seven months after the attack, the judge has not taken statements from the neighbors who claimed the women were attacked because they were lesbians. "This is prejudgment, because it rules out the possibility of a lesbicide before conducting the necessary tests, and when there are indications, it evades them," the statement says.

Irregularities in the investigation

Among other irregularities, they detail that despite the police identifying cameras that could be useful at the hotel, the judge did not seize them. When Sofía requested the footage, she stated that it had been lost due to the passage of time. Audio recordings of 911 calls from that day and previous calls related to the attacks months earlier were also not examined.

Adding to this situation, according to the statement, is the fact that the judge failed to compare the blood found in the hotel bathrooms with that of the attacker or the victims. Nor did he compare DNA evidence on the bodies of the victims.

“From the beginning of the case and throughout the six months of investigation, the omissions in due process reflect Judge Rabbione's tendency to fail to apply constitutional and conventional criteria regarding judging with a gender perspective and a differentiated approach based on the victims' perceived sexual orientation, to the detriment of a thorough criminal investigation as a dimension of Sofia's right to judicial protection and access to justice.”

It was a hate crime

Sofía Castro Riglos is the only survivor of the attack perpetrated by Justo Fernando Barrientos. The woman was attacked in the same room where her partner Andrea Amarante and Roxana and Pamela were staying. During the early hours of May 6, the lesbian attacker set fire to the room, and three of the women died in the attack, while Sofía survived, but with serious after-effects.

According to their allegations, throughout the six months of the investigation, there was "constant suspicion, dispossession, and a lack of recognition by the judge toward her, her identity, and her connection to Andrea, and the lesbian community she formed with Pamela and Roxana," they state. "The process that should be restorative for the only survivor of this atrocious lesbicide is causing her more harm," they add. Furthermore, the victim and plaintiff fears that Barrientos will be released due to the lack of investigation.

On Wednesday, November 6, six months after the attack, a plaque was installed and a festival was held to honor Pamela, Roxana, and Andrea.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Presentes (@presenteslatam)