unusual occurrence inside an educational institution Saint Louisin which. were involved Sexual abuse of a man with a man with Down syndromeIt already has a prosecution process where it will try to focus on a complaint executed in 2019. The attacker is accused of doing one. Sexual offenses with erotic access.
The first indication of a case of abuse relates to the moment in which 42 year old victimTold about a close friend, with a confidential identity Excessive treatment of the attacker. At that time, the suspect was doing the work of Cleaning and maintenance work in educational centerin which the victim took part.
case prosecutor, Virginia Palacioswas able to verify what happened based on the investigation of the person with the genetic disorder, in addition to the submission of files that contain the abuser Accused of making 25 calls to the victim in less than a year. He also referred to the documentation with data of medical examination before the health expert of the judiciary, Marcella Gomez.
In the charge, prosecutor Palacios indicated that “On April 27, 2019, here the respondent agreed to a meeting with the victim, picked her up and took her to a rural area where he touched her, kissed her and forced her to have oral sex with her.” At this point, the researcher says that the act of abuse They may start in 2016.
The college of judges that deals with the case is made up of the president of the body, Adriana Luceroand . the tone of Julio Fernando de Viana and Hugo William sa Petrino. Similarly, the Ombudsman for Children, Adolescents and the Disabled cooperates in the matter, Sebastian Privitera.
Abuse’s defense claims investigation lacks “verification criteria”
Defendant’s defense, made up of lawyers Santiago Calderon Solomon and Federico Putelliconfirmed its position by indicating that there is no lawyer in the case Thief “Down Syndrome Experience”so they continue to “Another Interview” Gather more evidence in the Geisel Chamber to explain the reason.
In that sense, the suspect’s lawyers indicated that the investigative interviews “did not meet the verification criteria.” As of now, the main defendant in the case has preventive prison so as not to interfere with the investigation.