Gang rape in Palermo: why the judge believes there was “a plan for mass sexual assault”

“(...) This situation forms part of the context in which the 'plan of mass sexual assault against the victim' was formed, and in its rationale, they constitute acts of execution aimed at verifying the victim's absence of any capacity to resist such attacks (...)”.

When Criminal and Correctional Judge No. 21, Marcos Fernández, who is investigating gang rape in Palermo, speaks of “that situation” in the prosecution which was released this Monday refers to the video where everyone, accused and victim, is seen in a kiosk, before being taken to the car parked in Serrano at 1.300.

For the magistrate, what is seen in these images is enough proof to speak of a joint plan and for this Tuesday he prosecuted with preventive detention and for the same crime Angel Pascual Ramos (23), Lautaro Dante Congo Pasotti (24), Thomas Fabian Dominguez (21), Steven Alexis Cuzzoni (20), Franco Jesus Lykan (24) Ignacio Retondo (22).

For the magistrate, beyond the role of each one, the six detainees for the gang rape of the 20-year-old girl, which occurred in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Palermo on February 28, must bear the same charge. In addition, the magistrate ordered to lock embargoes for 35 million pesos for each of the accused.

For both Prosecutor Eduardo Rosende and Judge Fernández, there was a “previous common plan” that was completed “taking advantage of the obvious and visible state of vulnerability that the victim presented as he was not in a psychophysical condition to freely consent to any act of a sexual nature.”

According to the two investigators, the six detainees took advantage of a key moment to carry out the abuse: the moment when the victim's friend, who had accompanied her that night, decided to retire home. “(The plan) developed over time and crystallized when T.A.I. withdrew from the place to his home.”

In the trial, the judge summarized in a paragraph what, according to him, was the plan that everyone agreed to: “Take the friend away from the victim, under the pretext of accompanying her to the collective that would direct her home, when in fact they would drive her almost immediately afterwards to the private vehicle VW Gol white in which the carnal access”.

Not only that. Judge Fernández points out Thomas Fabian Dominguez and Alexis Cuzzoni as those responsible for “initiating” the plan: “(...) It began to develop, devising over time, from when the victim was seen and contacted by Domínguez and Cuzzoni at the local Ro Techno bar interacting with her (...)”.

For Judge Marcos Fernández, it is not important whether all the detainees knew each other or whether they had any degree of prior friendship. In the brief, the magistrate emphasizes that the six defendants assumed “a joint behavior that culminated in the development of the plan to consummate the carnal access of which he was the victim”.

For the researchers, the clearest example of this alleged planning was seen on the security cameras of the “Curiosity” kiosk. There, Thomas Dominguez and Alexis Cuzzoni are seen touching and groping the victim who, clearly, has his faculties altered. The judge clarifies that this situation alone could consider a crime such as simple abuse. However, he understands that these events were the beginning of the plan aimed at sexual abuse.

“(...) These abusive acts must be read in the context in which the plan of mass sexual assault against the victim was formed, and in its reason, constitute acts of execution aimed at verifying the victim's absence of any capacity to resist such attacks (...)”.

The only two defendants who spoke in the file were Retondo and Lykan. Basically, the magistrate didn't believe them. “The version they tried to use does not take pity with the probances associated with the case and which are being considered, and their disclaimers should be taken as a vain attempt to improve their procedural situation in the file.”

In addition, Judge Fernández placed special emphasis on Lykan's statement. He considered it an “attempt at justification”. And he pointed out that it is not coincident with what the two bakers who witnessed the event said: “It is appropriate to point out the discrepancy between your account and those said by the witnesses and the film samples obtained at the scene of the event regarding the time when they entered the road.”

The magistrate refers to Lykan claiming to have entered the car between 13:00 and 13:30, while the security cameras see him entering “at 14:47:06, that is, more than an hour after what he said, doing so jointly with other defendants and the victim”.

Fernández didn't believe Retondo either. Especially about the moment when the accused met the victim: “Beyond the discordances regarding the times at which he referred he made contact with the victim, while the probances brought up account of the location of the victim in another place, the truth is that he has positioned himself at the scene of the incident, and outside the vehicle where the sexual assault took place, which he approached more than once, knocking on the window of the vehicle and grabbing the door handle”.

As for the accounts of the witnesses, the judge considered that they were “clear, coherent and circumstantiated”. He added that there are no “qualms as to their credibility, and there is no kind of animosity towards the accused.”

KEEP READING