A heartbreaking cry has overwhelmed the room, during the first session of the trial against the accused of having sexually assaulted his stepdaughter since she was 10 years old. The sound came through a video recorded two years ago, when the girl was 14, and she had to recount in court the alleged sexual assaults she suffered for three years by the man who was her mother's partner, whom she then called "dad."
In order not to relive that situation again for the minor, who is now 16 years old and continues in psychological treatment, the magistrates of the First Section of the Provincial Court have agreed to the request of the Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecution and have exempted the victim from testifying again during the trial. Thus, what has been reproduced during the hearing is that recording that was made during the investigation of the case, precisely in anticipation that it could be used to avoid having to repeat her statement.
Only the defendant's lawyer has opposed, arguing that the minor already has "sufficient judgment and maturity" to appear in the trial, but the magistrates have rejected his arguments. "Just as the defendant has a presumption of innocence, the victim has a presumption of victim, and in this case with more consistency, due to vulnerability," said the president of the Chamber, concluding, based on the four medical reports provided, that it is "not advisable to subject her to a new test" and to a "re-victimization", when the previous one was carried out "with all guarantees" and with the presence of the defendant's lawyer, who then had another lawyer.
In addition, for this same reason, caution has been requested when disseminating any detail that could lead to the identification of the minor, including the prohibition of recording or photographing the mother and the recommendation to avoid certain data, so in this article any reference to the place where they resided, as well as personal information about the accused, has been omitted.
In that statement in the Courts, made as "anticipated evidence", the girl was assisted by two psychologists, who were the ones who were transmitting the questions asked by the parties. Thus, she began to recount how the alleged abuses began, some time after her mother began a relationship with the accused and they all began to live together.
According to her testimony, it first started with more superficial touching and when she was between 10 or 11 years old, the "full sexual relations" allegedly arrived. And when she began to describe them, her statement was interrupted several times by crying. However, the most tense moment was yet to come, and it occurred during the defense's interrogation. During that interrogation, there are almost five minutes in which only the girl's tears are heard. And those tears have been relived with intensity in the room where the trial was held this Wednesday, where it seemed that almost everyone present was holding their breath.
The defendant's lawyer's harsh questions
After the harsh account that the girl had already given, having to go into details of how they occurred and what exactly those relations consisted of, the lawyer insisted on even more heartbreaking questions and posed with crudeness, about whether "he ejaculated inside or outside the vagina", about whether afterwards he would go to "finish" in the bathroom or to "clean himself", about whether on a certain occasion the accused "put on or did not put on his pants before leaving the room", about whether that day "a word was said or not said" before leaving; or if in another he made her "take off her panties and pants but kept her shirt on". He was thus looking for contradictions with the minor's previous testimonies, both before the Police and in her first judicial statement.
In this regard, all the experts who have testified in the trial have agreed that it is precisely the small "contradictions" that give veracity to an account, especially when it comes to children. In fact, they have all pointed out that precisely a "rigid" account, which is repeated over and over again in an identical way, is what makes one doubt that it is true and not something learned. And even more so when a "traumatic situation" has been experienced, in which the mind sometimes makes one "forget" certain episodes, as a "defense mechanism", and that are then remembered over time.
The victim herself, in her statement, added another element to that. "In front of my mother it was hard for me to tell some things." This is how she responded to the defendant's lawyer, when he asked her why she did not give all the details of the abuse she had suffered from her first statement.
"At the time of that statement I was not well," added the girl. And despite the difficulty with which she also faced that last interrogation, she added that she was already "stronger than ever."
However, the defense's questions made even the psychologist who had to pass them on to the minor uncomfortable at several times. This also motivated the lawyer's complaint, who from the beginning stressed that he did not consider that the questions had to be asked by the psychologists, but by the parties. One of those psychologists, after pointing out several times that that "was not a question" or that "what was the question" that she had to pass on, offered at one point to put the headphones on the girl, so that the lawyer could address her directly. "But of course, not in that tone," warned the professional. However, the judge intervened to prevent it, and the psychologist's mediation continued to be used to pass on the questions.
"I was afraid he would do something to me"
Regarding why she did not tell anyone what was happening before, the minor explained that she was afraid of the accused. "He was very aggressive and I was afraid he would do something to me. He mistreated my mother and hit her. He was super aggressive, he shouted a lot. He smashed things against the floor when he got angry," she replied. And she also assured that he threatened her: "He told me that if I told my mother she would not believe me and she would put me in a boarding school."
According to her statement, as time went by she began to refuse, but the accused paid for it with punishments and turning her mother against her. "Finally I had the courage and the moment to tell my mother when he was not there," she explained. When asked by the prosecutor, she said that the reason was that she was "getting older", "she was not happy" and she was having a bad time.
According to her testimony, it was during a trip that the couple made, without her and without her younger sisters, when she began to think that "she had to tell it". On the way back, they were watching a program on television, "Volverte a ver", which stirred her inside. "I went to the bathroom to cry and I realized that I had to tell it, that what was happening was not normal and that he could do something more serious to me, like kill me." It was not a specific story, as she clarified before the insistence of the defense lawyer, who went so far as to affirm that he had "swallowed the four programs" that were broadcast that day without finding the trigger that led her to file the complaint.
"I did not want to have a broken family. And I knew that my mother was going to support me in everything. It was not my fault", replied the minor. Faced with this, the lawyer insisted on the supposed contradiction with what the girl had thought until then. "When I saw the program I thought: my mother is going to support me. Not before. I was little. How old was I? Eleven? What thought could I have?" she declared at 14 years old, two after having denounced the events.
"Now I'm not afraid of him at all"
"Are you afraid of the accused?" the prosecutor asked her. "Right now no, but at the time I was. Now that time has passed, I am not afraid of him at all," she replied firmly. However, she did point out that she has "sequelae" from what happened. "To this day I am working to improve," she added.
During the trial, up to three psychologists confirmed these sequelae, which include depressive disorder, low self-esteem and a tendency to school problems, among other things, and pointed out that it is a "symptomatology compatible with sexual assault."
In addition, the forensic doctors who examined her after filing the complaint, when she was 12 years old, have confirmed that what the girl referred to "is fully compatible with the injuries" they observed.
