The National Criminal and Correctional Prosecutor’s Office No. 10 of the Federal Capital, temporarily in charge of Santiago Vismara, and the Specialized Fiscal Unit for Violence against Women (UFEM), in charge of Mariela Labozzetta, asked today that the former governor of Tucumán be summoned to the investigation Jose Alperovich in a sexual abuse case.
The complaint against the current Tucumán senator from the Frente de Todos – under license – was filed a little over a year ago by his niece and former adviser. The representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office recalled in their opinion that there is another file that is being processed now in the Tucumán justice but that was claimed to be accumulated with this case. This situation of jurisdiction is now in the Supreme Court of Justice. The information on the request for an inquiry to Alperovich was published on the page of the Attorney General’s Office. (www.fiscales.gov.ar)
In the report, prosecutors Vismara and Labozzetta reviewed the two situations mentioned by the complainant – whose name is not disclosed – that occurred in December 2017. They noted that cases of sexual abuse are committed in an area of privacy where it is not always possible have direct witnesses to what happened. And they pointed out that: “For this reason, women victims of this kind of aggression and abuse face great difficulties in reporting them, all of which has led to the design of public policies that, from the justice service, have been developing for some years, in order to guarantee them a effective and timely assistance ”.
In their opinion, the prosecutors highlighted the psychological expert report, the medical records, the communications between the victim and Alperovich, which granted “Evidentiary force” to the statements of the complainant. They emphasized the need to apply “a criterion of evidentiary breadth”, that is, to consider the presumptions that contribute to the demonstration of the facts. “Provided these are serious, precise and consistent indications”.
Labozzetta and Vismara indicated that: “It can be argued that the most transcendental evidence in these cases is the statements of the victim and the elements gathered must be evaluated under the guideline established by the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women.” To this they added that in the file there are “plenty of charge elements” that support those sayings.
They reviewed in their opinion the different types of violence against women, like the sexual, the psychological and the symbolic. “Women, by virtue of being women, disproportionately suffer violence in the domestic sphere, and suffer it with distinctive characteristics, given that in this space the relations between women and men crossed by gender acquire more intensity”, they considered . In the case of the complainant, they highlighted that the asymmetrical relationship was also traversed by the employment relationship he had with Alperovich and the position of power that he held, not only in the matter of work but at the provincial and national level.
In addition to the family relationship, the prosecutors took into account the age difference (35 years); the situation of work dependency; the fact that Alperovich was and is a well-known politician with provincial and national influence, who for years ruled Tucumán, the province where the complainant currently lives. The young woman related in her complaint the context of “Permanent control and humiliation in which that relationship developed, his constant imperative tone towards her and the naturalization of the environment of obscene phrases uttered by him and directed at her and other people”.
In this sense, the prosecutors mentioned the publication made by the General Directorate of Gender Policies and the Office of the Administrative Investigations Office, “Tools for addressing gender violence from institutional spaces.” It describes the characteristics of this type of violence, which includes sexual harassment such as conduct or comments with sexual connotations that are not consented to by the recipient. These jokes, comments about clothing or physical appearance create “an intimidating, adverse or humiliating work environment.”
There, psychological (or moral) harassment is also defined as “the mistreatment exercised on a female worker with the aim of destabilizing her, isolating her, destroying her reputation, deteriorating her self-esteem and reducing her work capacity.” It was for this reason that they noted that the imbalance of power and asymmetry constitute basic elements in workplace violence, but not necessarily linked to hierarchy levels, but also considering “other elements such as the psychological capacity for influence and manipulation and the group pressure exerted against the worker ”.
Prosecutors Vismara and Labozzetta concluded that Alperovich should be investigated because the facts that they accused “They are framed in a context of sexual violence, intrafamily and workplace harassment for gender reasons”.
I kept reading:
The tough letter from Alperovich’s niece