"The camera failure does not speak of abandonment of person …

"Santiago is a slap to the capitalist and macho system, to the successful and consuming man, he rejected all that: in his pockets there were linings because he lovingly cared for and cared for, imagine the being of light that was." Verónica Heredia speaks and thinks quickly, reflects on the ruling that reopened the Maldonado case, speaks with Page12 and is outraged because, once again, its diffusion was accompanied by maneuvers. "We must clarify, the ruling of the Chamber of Commodore Rivadavia does not even mention the word 'abandonment', nor does it say 'we must investigate the abandonment of a person", what happens is that he ably speaks of the fact that the link was not investigated causal between the omission of the gendarmes or the mapuches. If the ruling does not say abandonment of person, why are we going to limit the object of investigation? ", Said the lawyer.

–Then what happened? Do we ask and answer for a deduction?

–When I went to look for the ruling in the Chamber, I met Judge Leal de Ibarra. I anticipated 'look that we rule out forced disappearance and say that abandonment of person is investigated'. He told me that. A few minutes later they tell me that in Infobae the title was 'abandonment of person' despite the fact that the resolution did not speak of that crime. We realized the operation of installing what that judge said, who made a deliberate summary of a ruling that does not say what he would have wanted me to say. We have fallen into everything they want us to say, and everyone is repeating it. The Chamber does not limit the reopening of the investigation to investigate only a person abandonment. Second, he says that a traumatic death must be investigated in a context of state repression. And if you order test measures, the investigation is missing. Once it starts, the result can be any.

– Is abandonment of person a malicious omission?

– Yes, but it does not apply to people who are in a situation of personal risk. This means: I am on the beach, I know how to swim and I see that someone is drowning. The sea is choppy, I don't dare to risk my life. The Mapuches had no obligation to rescue him again. But let's put the hypothesis they want to install: Santiago was drowning and the Mapuches left him. There is no omission on the part of Matías Santana, Lucas Pilquiman or Nicasio Luna if they were the last to have seen it, something we doubt. But even in that case they had no obligation because they were at risk of their lives, at least being arrested. You can never fall on them. And this the Camm knows.

– Do the gendarmes have that crime?

– Absolutely yes, at least.

–In fact, Nicasio Luna says that Santiago told him 'Peñi, follow you, I can't do it anymore'.

–All were protecting their freedom and their lives. If that moment existed there was a certain risk for them, therefore there is no obligation. The law does not ask for heroic behaviors, as it would have been the one that they claim to claim, that they become a hero, that they become the savior of someone at the expense of their own life, a martyr. That is not required by law, there is no obligation, they could not be charged for abandonment.

– How does the cause continue? Are you going to challenge Judge Gustavo Lleral?

– We will define it with Sergio (Maldonado). The claim to rule out forced disappearance is contradictory to what the Chamber itself says when it recognizes that it does not even know when Santiago died. The difference between 50 and 70 days is too much. If Lleral continues we will challenge him. Our arguments to appeal its closure of the case were taken into account, and the House makes it clear when it says they have no certainty as to the autopsy. The criminalist Enrique Prueger is cited, along with Sara Maldonado, our grievance is that Lleral refused to summon them. The Chamber makes it clear that the complaints were asking for evidence all the time and Lleral rejected them without giving grounds. What we are going to accept is the reconstruction of the facts with the Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) because it was only once in the place, and in December when Santiago died in winter.

– Your expert was from EAAF. Did you rethink about it?

–In relation to (Alejandro) Incháurregui it is not true what the book that came out says. I had no relationship with him, I went to the Team on August 22 and asked for collaboration. Sergio, Andrea and I met Incháurregui on the same day through Mario Coriolano, defender of Cassation, with whom I had worked on the Iván Torres case. At that time it was no longer part of the EAAF. Honestly there were no expectations of finding the body, except in the river. Lleral informed us on the 13th that the 17th was going to make a new rake. We were a hundred kilometers from Esquel and El Bolsón, eight hours standing by the river without knowing if it was Santiago, alone. The 20 were the experts of each part in Buenos Aires, I did not have material time to think of a forensic expert doctor. I never imagined that the body was going to appear in the river that had been raked three times. So when the body appears, the one who goes on behalf of the family is an anthropologist. Then we asked Incháurregui if with that same autopsy the facts could have been different, that Santiago has swallowed water, and that they have removed it, or as two witnesses say, it was delivered and that is why there is no breakage of the clothes. We told him if it could be that he started hypothermia, died and was thrown back into the water, following the autopsy data. He answered all three of us that it was possible. Please ask him to say it but he replied "it is a semantic question". If it happens again I will have a whole team of experts.

– What happened thenDo you stop at the autopsy?

–I never imagined that they were going to be so miserable and fearful. They had the pressure of the government and the minister, they found a body that didn't say what they thought it was going to say. And then, nothing happened here. The reasoning used by the experts is identical to that of Lleral and also the same as that applied by the judges in the case of Lucía Pérez, are traced sentences: as there was no impalement there was nothing. It is my feminist view of law, against what is established and what they want to impose. I resist that logic of patriarchal, sexist and sexist law. Santiago was a slap to that. The experts when not finding a body with a bullet, broken or all torn were scared and said that nothing happened. They made a horrible report, of the 100 pages, half are the signatures, while they were saying 'well, yes, nothing happened'.

– Prosecutor Silvina Avila went to Caleta Olivia, it is the case of ARA San Juan. How does the Maldonado cause continue?

–We have ten days to appeal or not the House ruling. If Echazú has a true independent defense of the Ministry of Security, it would be logical to appeal, because he returned to the file as accused. In a contest of democratic entry, Avila gave up but came out last. In Comodoro they know that it is an inoperative grotesque. If it goes to the ARA San Juan case it is because they put it to guarantee impunity. They cannot be judges Otranto or Lleral. It could fall in the court of Parcio, or Tailor, that was already separated in a cause by the disappearance of César Moncalvez. The State is not prepared to investigate a crime committed by the State itself.