With the decision of the Court of Appeals the case did not end. The defendants won an important battle. The “war” continues.
by Alessandro Amicarelli
Article 4 of 4. Read article 1, article 2 and article 3.
On December 22, 2023, the prosecutors filed an appeal in cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Unless this appeal in cassation is accepted, the concrete consequence of the Court of Appeals’ rulings presented in article 3 of this series will be the return of the case file back to the judge of first instance, Ariel Lijo, so that he may properly evaluate the evidence collected so far, with special reference to the psychiatric and psychological examinations of the alleged victims performed by experts of the Forensic Medical Corps of the Supreme Court. In addition, Judge Lijo was urged to re-examine the defense’s plea of lack of action and the objections of a constitutional nature introduced by the defense.
These circumstances could lead to a re-evaluation of the indictments issued and of the procedural situation of the other defendants who provided statements and documentary evidence and who have not yet received a response from the prosecution or by the judge. In the event of an unfavorable ruling for the defendants, the defense may appeal again to obtain a review by the higher court before reaching the elevation to trial.
Appendix 1: A chronology of recent events
September 8, 2022. Judge Lijo pronounces nineteen indictments.
November 4, 2022. The Court of Appeals partially confirms 17 indictments (revoking some of the charges in 10 of them), finds lack of merit in the other two, orders the release of all detainees, and urges Judge Lijo to hear the alleged victims and especially to conduct psychological and psychiatric tests.
July 4, 2023. The expert examination of the alleged victims is concluded, with results signed in agreement by all the intervening experts of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the experts on behalf of the parties (the experts on behalf of MPF add to their agreement the clause “We reserve the right to expand”). Judge Lijo schedules a hearing for the prosecutors to conclude the investigation.
July 7, 2023. The defense files an exception for lack of action (absence of crime). They also file a nullity action (asking for the annulment of the hearing of July 4).
August 7, 2023. The prosecutors present their request for partial elevation to trial.
August 15, 2023. The defense opposes the elevation to trial and offers new evidence. The defense counsels present scientific and journalistic articles. They attach a letter from twelve NGOs expressing concern. They comment on the results of the forensic reports. They explain that the so-called “sleep cures” practiced by BAYS that prosecutors regarded as a sinister means of brainwashing are normal procedures and are even fashionable, with publications about it. They state that many other people who requested to be heard, as well as people who can provide key information such as clients of the companies under investigation, have not been called to testify. They present the written testimonies of more than fifty individuals; and they criticize in detail the arguments of the prosecution, questioning the veracity and coherence of the conclusions it presented.
August 17, 2023. The nine alleged victims file a brief opposing the elevation to trial. The prosecutors file a “supplementary report,” prepared by their expert witnesses (DATIP), in which they argue that the nine women are under “coercive persuasion.”
August 21 to 27, 2023. The nine alleged victims submit several briefs strongly criticizing DATIP’s “supplementary report.”
September 19, 2023. Judge Lijo signs the order of elevation to trial for the seventeen defendants. At the same time, he rejects the exception for lack of action and the nullity claim of the defense.
September 21 to 25, 2023. The defense counsels appeal the rejection of the exception for lack of action and the nullity claim. In addition, they appeal the elevation to trial order and ask for a declaration of unconstitutionality of article 352 criminal procedure code that establishes the prohibition to appeal an elevation to trial.
September 26, 2023. Judge Lijo passes the appeals for nullity claim and lack of action to Court of Appeals.
October 2, 2023. Judge Lijo rejects the appeal to elevation to trial and unconstitutionality of Article 352. The defense resubmits it in a complaint before Chamber 2 of the Court of Appeals.
December 7, 2023. The Court of Appeals rules the nullity of the decree closing the preliminary investigation and the consequent elevation to trial of defendants and sends the case back to Judge Lijo. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Farah states that he believes all the defendants should be acquitted and the case closed, while the other two judges argue that the issue of lack of crime cannot be dealt with until the validity or otherwise of the new elements submitted has been discussed.
December 22, 2023. The prosecutors file an appeal in cassation against the Court of Appeals decision of December 7.
Appendix 2 – Articles on the BAYS Case
By Susan Palmer: “From Cults to ‘Cobayes’: New Religions as ‘Guinea Pigs’ for Testing New Laws. The Case of the Buenos Aires Yoga School.”
By Massimo Introvigne: “The Great Cult Scare in Argentina and the Buenos Aires Yoga School.”
Human rights analysis of the PROTEX-Salum case by Willy Fautré, part 1 and part 2.
“Misusing Anti-Trafficking Laws Against Spiritual Minorities: The Case of PROTEX in Argentina.”
“Argentina: Government Promotes the Pseudo-Scientific Theory of Brainwashing.”
“Human Rights Abuses Against Buenos Aires Yoga School Denounced at the United Nations.”