After the controversial acquittal of the judge, they inaugurated a mural in tribute to Lucio Dupuy.

On Friday in La Pampa they acquitted the judge who handed over Lucio Dupuy to his mother Magdalena Espósito Valenti and her partner Abigail Páez, the two women who ended up sentenced to life for murdering the baby. A day later, in Mataderos they inaugurated a mural in tribute to the 5-year-old boy under the motto “No more children held hostage.”

The event was led by the Shared Childhood association and took place in Alberdi Park, in Mataderos, on Saturday afternoon. The national deputies María Eugenia Vidal (Pro), Lucía Montenegro (LLA) and the Buenos Aires senator Alex Campbell (Pro) were present there.

“Today we inaugurate the first mural by Lucio Dupuy in the City of Buenos Aires. A small tribute to the Angel who is basically no longer there, but is present to spread and raise awareness about the obstruction of ties and the repudiation of all forms of child abuse and mistreatment. We thank once again all those involved in the realization of this work and the presence of the politicians who came to listen to us,” they published.

The mural, about 40 meters long, was made by the artist Lidia Rosana Gómez from San Antonio Oeste and the organizations Crianza Sana Argentina, No More Hostage Children, and Asociación Lucio Dupuy also participated in the project.

Next to the painting that remembers the boy abused and murdered by his mother and her partner, he placed a plaque that reads: “The murder of Lucio was in the context of obstruction of ties and impediment of contact and was carried out through false complaints , threats and extortion towards the paternal family. This crime should remind us that child abuse has no gender and that processes involving children must be carried out with qualified professionals who immediately listen, contain and protect children.”

A trial jury on Friday acquitted the judge Ana Clara Pérez Ballesterwho gave guardianship to Lucio Dupuy’s mother, currently serving life in prison for the baby’s crime.

In the ruling that was announced at noon, the jury also acquitted the judge’s advisor, Elisa Catan.

The jury’s verdict on the Family judge and the Children and Adolescents advisor was announced after the deputy attorney general asked that the judge be convicted and dismissed for poor performance in her duties.

The hearing began at 12 with the reading of the ruling on the two accused, Pérez Ballester, head of the Family, Children and Adolescents Court 1; and Elisa Catán, in charge of the Girls, Boys and Adolescents Advisory 2, both organizations of General Pico.

The two were tried for their work in processing the legacies for the guardianship and personal care of Lucio, murdered on November 26, 2021 by his mother Magdalena Espósito Valenti and her partner, Abigail Páez.

The vote was 4 to 1 in favor of acquittal. The head of the jury and president of the Superior Court of Justice, Fabricio Luis Losi, favored this option; the deputy María Andrea Valderrama Calvo and the lawyers for the registration, Silvina María Garro and María Natalia Gaccio; while legislator María Silvia Larreta voted in the minority for the dismissal of both officials.

In this way, Pérez Ballester was aauthorized to exercise its load again. The same thing happened with Catan, who did not help the room due to a family problem.

Ramón Dupuy, Lucio’s grandfather, became ill when he heard the ruling. Although he refused to be transferred by ambulance to a medical center, he was treated by doctors at the headquarters of the La Pampa Legislature, where all the hearings took place. On the contrary, The resolution was celebrated by Pérez Ballester, who hugged his lawyers.

Pérez Ballester was the one who approved the agreement between Lucio’s aunt Leticia Hidalgo, who had possession, and the child’s mother, Magdalena Espósito Valenti (26). There it was established that as of July 2020 the boy would move from General Pico to Santa Rosa, where Espósito Valenti lived with his partner, Abigail Páez (27).

Each of the jury members justified the reasons for their decision. The president of the Superior Court of Justice and also president of the jury pointed out that “the prosecutor’s accusation was not proven after the development of the debate, since the reproaches were for matters that were absolutely debatable; placing in the heads of the officials, obligations that do not arise from the applicable law and that make it possible to be reproached for omissions or repeated negligence in the exercise of their functions”.

“If Lucio’s direct relatives could not detect or warn situations of violence, nor did they say anything to their own lawyer when they went to her studio to sign the agreement, nor to the prejudicial mediator at the Public Mediation Center, how can we “Require two judicial officials to warn him of just reading the files?” Losi said, according to what was reported. The Diario de La Pampa.

Valderrama Calvo pointed out that when there is an agreement between the parties and no indication that the rights of the child are being violated, The agreements “are simply approved” and in this sense he emphasized that “the actions of the accused in both files were not far from the generality carried out by all those who make up the Pampean judicial system in matters of family law.”

Lawyer Gaccio agreed: “Not even the paternal family, who was the one who frequented the child, was able to warn the authorities of the existence of violence (…) The judge and the advisor, with the records that were in the files, that “It was the only thing they could have in view when resolving the issues discussed (guardianship and personal care), they did not have evidence that evidenced violence against the child.” And regarding the evidentiary measures that the officials could have requested, she said that they had the power to do so but “it falls within the scope of judicial criteria, and cannot be the subject of analysis in this process.”

Lawyer Garro, who is also an attorney, emphasized the controversy over whether Lucio had been listened to: “How should we clarify what the best interest of the child is in each situation if we do not find out what the main protagonist thinks? An opinion that although “It is fair to take into account, it does not necessarily mean doing what the child says, but evaluating his opinion in harmony with the remaining evidence of the case, in order not to transform him into an arbiter of issues that are beyond his decision and responsibility.” .

Representative Larreta was the only one who voted against the acquittal, considering the poor performance proven since “the ‘habitual practice’ in judicial processes can never be taken as an excuse; quite the contrary, if that habituality is perfectible, the society demands that it be modified.”

“Listening does not exclusively imply a verbal manifestation, but can be obtained by other means, in accordance with age and development,” highlighted Larreta, who determined that “age cannot be a determining factor for not granting that right.”