CAT/C/65/D/778/2016
other prisoners and that all such matters were brought to the attention of the competent
judicial authorities.
4.4
The State party also provides a copy of the file in the case entitled Yrusta, Roberto
Agustín re/his death (case file No. 173/13), which was referred to the Sixth Bench of the
Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court. In the context of this case, the State party notes that,
on 26 February 2013, Mr. Yrusta’s sisters submitted a request for standing as private
criminal plaintiffs, which was rejected by a decision of 22 April 2013 on the grounds that
“the legal representative lacked standing to bring an action in the capacity invoked”. On 1
July 2013, the complainants filed a motion requesting the Santa Fe Criminal Court of
Appeal to reconsider the decision of the Criminal Investigation Court. The motion was
dismissed on 3 July 2013 on the grounds that “persons seeking recognition as private
criminal plaintiffs must be provided with legal representation at government expense if they
lack the financial resources needed to pursue a criminal trial so as to prevent the
impairment of their right to seek and obtain justice (in this case, the right to have a
punishment imposed), but it is not the responsibility of the Provincial Public Criminal
Defence Service to provide such representation, and, furthermore, the task of doing so was
not legally entrusted to the Service and is incompatible with the very essence of the
Service’s role”. Subsequently, on 13 July 2013, the complainants filed a protest motion
before the Santa Fe Criminal Court of Appeal. The motion was resolved on 27 December
2013 by Criminal Chamber No. 2 of the Court, which overturned the lower court’s ruling
on the grounds, mainly, that the argument concerning the legal representative’s lack of
standing to bring an action in the case did not imply that the prospective plaintiffs – in this
case, the authors of the present complaint – had no right to bring an action. Pursuant to the
Court’s decision, on 13 March 2014, a hearing was held to consider the application for
recognition as private criminal plaintiffs with the participation of the Provincial Public
Defender and the public prosecutor involved in the investigation into the causes of Mr.
Yrusta’s death. On 17 March 2014, on the basis of the background material submitted at the
hearing, the trial judge of the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court of
Judicial District No. 1 issued a new judgment rejecting the petition for recognition as a
party to the prosecution filed by Ms. Estela Deolinda Yrusta because of the lack of standing
of her legal representative Mr. Ganon, the Provincial Public Defender of Santa Fe. Among
other arguments, the judgment noted that Mr. Ganon had not taken office at the time of Mr.
Yrusta’s death and that, even more importantly, it would be contrary to the role of the
Public Defence Service to intervene in the case as a plaintiff, as the bodies responsible for
providing representation are the legal aid centres for vulnerable victims who are unable to
engage a lawyer because of their financial situation. There is no record of the authors
submitting a request to one of these centres. On 30 March 2014, Mr. Ganon appealed the
judgment, claiming, inter alia, that Mr. Yrusta’s family were unable to engage a lawyer,
that they lived in a different province, which meant that they would incur various travel and
logistical costs, that the law establishing the powers of the Provincial Public Criminal
Defence Service did not prevent the Service from representing, assisting and collaborating
with the families of victims defended by the Public Defender Service, that the Public Legal
Service was doing nothing to shed light on the case, leaving the victims defenceless, that
what was at stake was the right of victims, in the broad sense of the word, to have access to
justice, and that the possible intervention of lawyers from provincial legal aid centres would
not provide guarantees of impartiality, since such lawyers belonged to the same
administration as the officials accused of committing the offences of torture and illtreatment against Mr. Yrusta. On 23 April 2014, the higher court overturned the ruling of
the trial judge of 13 March 2014 on the grounds that “it fails to fulfil the right of the
prospective plaintiffs to have access to justice. Accordingly, in view of the basis in law
invoked by the latter, due process of law must be followed in order to allow them the
possibility of intervening in the case”. The court further considered that the violation of the
right to due process could have been resolved by a “court order”, without necessarily
having to reject the request from Mr. Yrusta’s sisters for standing as private criminal
plaintiffs in the case in question. For these reasons, an order was issued that revoked the
appealed decision and stated that the trial judge should rule in accordance with the law.
Accordingly, on 4 June 2014, the trial judge of the Seventh Bench issued a new decision,
rejecting the request for standing as private criminal plaintiffs on the grounds that, under
provincial law, legal standing is granted only to protected heirs. On 13 June 2014, the
4
GE.19-01524