Mauricio Bártoli
10/23/2020 1:13 PM
Clarín.com
Rural
Updated 10/23/2020 2:01 PM
With a recommendation to the conflicting parties of the Etchevehere family to
think of "a peaceful solution"
, the deputy judge of La Paz, Entre Ríos,
Raúl Flores
rejected the request for eviction from the "Casa Nueva" camp
, requested as a precautionary measure. , by prosecutors Oscar Sobko and María Constanza Bessa and the complaint represented by Rubén Pagliotto, as contemplated in article 75 of the Entre Ríos Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since then, the magistrate had three working days to resolve, according to articles 190 and 191 of the Entre Ríos Criminal Procedure Code (CPPER), which
in article 75 establishes that "the Guarantees judge at the request of the injured party may provisionally order the immediate reinstatement of the possession
or possession of the property, when the right invoked by the injured party is credible ".
The content of the ruling turned around that point.
Flores understood that article 75 of the CPPER requires, in order to be validly dispatched the precautionary measure of eviction from the property, the "verisimilitude of the right" on which it is based, which
has not been proven by the prosecution or complaint with the provisional nature that the case warrants
, without prejudice to the fact that the required requirements are accredited in a timely manner and with the progress of the case or during the debate.
And I conclude in that sense that "while, at the moment,
the doubt favors the suspect
.
"
v 1.5
"New House" The field taken
Tap to explore the data
Source:
Correspondent on site
Infographic:
Clarín
A central aspect of the resolution is that Flores dismissed the accusations of "conduct entrusted to the suspects", that is, violence against people and / or property, denounced according to article 181 of the Penal Code.
That norm establishes that "the following shall be punished with
imprisonment from six months to three years
: 1. who by violence, threats, deceit, breaches of trust or clandestinity deprives another, totally or partially, of the possession or possession of a property or property. exercise of a real right constituted over it, whether the dispossession takes place by invading the property, staying in it or expelling the occupants; 2º who, to seize all or part of a property, destroys or alters the terms or limits of the property himself; 3º the one who, with violence or threats, disturbs the possession or possession of a property ”.
The magistrate ccontempló in this regard that "the taxpayer of the act would be Las Margaritas SA, owner of the property registry according to the report of the Public Property Registry of La Paz", but stated that "without exhibiting the property title in the succession trial".
Based on this, he interpreted that "
the dispossession according to the complaint, and in this case it would be partial
, because the accusing body indicates that the usurpant would have occupied a fraction of the property (without indicating surface area) that also includes the helmet or main house of the field; reserved use of the Etchevehere family. "
Regarding the means used for the taking, the judge took into account the accusation of "intimidation of rural workers of Las Margaritas by 40 people, but evaluated that
" without indicating or proving the prosecution another violent act other than the number of people
;
and that some of these would have told them "that from now on they would perform a certain type of task" and that up to a certain limit of the field they will be able to move forward, which instilled fear in them. "
Another crucial aspect is that the judge considered that
"until the inheritance trial is completed" and the inventory
of the family inheritance is completed, "
for all existing assets the brothers are joint owners and owners alike
."
That pending situation, according to the magistrate, "would
leave standing the corporate meeting of" Las Margaritas SA ", of September 14, 2018
, in whose bosom the complainant Leonor Barbero Marcial and her children, gave Dolores Etchevehere the amount of 129 hectares of the Casa Nueva field.
From all this, Flores also deduces that "the
family dispute
-hereditary for the ownership and / or possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be resolved in a criminal
court
-because
the true owners of the
allegedly usurped
field
are clearly
confused-
; It
would
truly
be a small portion
, according to Dr. Pagliotto (the lawyer for the complaint) "... of the more than 5,000 hectares" of land that the family owns as an inheritance.
Finally, in point 7 and last of his recitals, the magistrate asks "apologies to the parties" because the following criterion that he himself considers "does not make the question resolved", but states: "My judicial training from" the law of the families "leads me to the need to offer the Etchevehere brothers to be able to
think of a peaceful, harmonious solution, from win-win, different from what has been seen until then
and with the help of well-intentioned operators, showing by example that everything this is material and therefore it will remain on earth. "
The judicial definition of the seizure, which began on Thursday 15 of this month, came 8 days after the complaint was made by the majority of the Etchevehere family, and after the presentations at the Audience Management Office of this city of La Peace requested by Judge Flores when the case
escalated in levels of confrontation and media exposure
.
