The Federal Court of First Instance of Río Grande rejected the complaint filed by Jorge Taranto, a soldier and Malvinas War veteran, against two former soldiers who testified against him. Taranto thus attempted to open a parallel case for alleged false testimony, but was unsuccessful.
Federal Judge Mariel Borruto 's ruling was categorical and did not allow him to file a complaint to try to change the course of the case involving torture and crimes against humanity committed against his own subordinates during the 1982 war.
Taranto , who served as a second lieutenant in the war , had filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Río Grande, in which he accused two soldiers of "false testimony" and questioned the actions of judicial officials, including former judge Lilian Herráez and prosecutor Marcelo Rapoport.
Judge Borruto stated in her ruling that " accepting this type of maneuver would allow any defendant to open parallel cases to delegitimize testimony against him, generating procedural contradictions and jeopardizing judicial coherence ," which led to the dismissal of the complaint " for lack of a crime ."
The military man He claimed that he had been the victim of false statements by some witnesses and that these statements had been used by the prosecutor to hold him "hostage in this investigation into institutional violence."
However, the judge's latest ruling recalls that Taranto's complaint did not clearly identify the specific criminal conduct of the judicial officials, merely accusing them of maliciously using statements to harm him, without offering a minimal description that would allow such conduct to be classified .
“ Any ongoing investigation into the statements of witnesses Rodríguez and Pérez is already underway in file FCR 6300-1777/2007, and in that process the complainant must exercise his defense to challenge said testimonies ,” Borruto stated.
He added that " allowing a defendant to become a plaintiff in a parallel case, with the aim of attacking the testimony base of the main file, creates the danger of contradictions and affects the coherence of the judicial system ."
For its part, the statement from the Malvinas Islands Veterans' Center (CECIM) in La Plata reinforces the judicial position, pointing out that " the case of torture in the Malvinas Islands is not an isolated or minor case ," and that " the central file contains more than 200 testimonies from victims, military documentation that supports it and has been validated by multiple national and international judicial bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ."
According to CECIM , " this maneuver is part of a media victimization strategy by the accused to try to delay and justify his attitude of not having been investigated in almost 18 years and continuing to deny the facts ."
These are strategies that seek to discredit whistleblowers and sustain a narrative of self-exculpation , in a context in which the justice system continues to make progress in clarifying these war crimes.
" The court ruling issued on May 12 is yet another piece of evidence that we have been maintaining for years: that the only real lobby is the one that, for almost two decades, prevented those responsible for serious crimes during the war from being brought to justice. What exists is a robust, legitimate judicial process, with the participation of victims, plaintiffs, prosecutors, judges, and international organizations. There is no persecution or fiction, but rather facts, evidence, and concrete accusations," the La Plata veterans maintain.
FOUNTAIN:
