The case of Nahir Galarza Keep generating judicial controversiesand now his defense has promoted a new criminal complaint that could directly impact his conviction. The presentation made by its lawyers José Esteban Ostolaza and Pablo Ezequiel Sotelo points against the Bromatology Bachelor Gabriela Estefanía Laiñowho would have carried out computer expertise in the case that condemned Galarza without having the training or authority necessary for it.
The criminal complaint
The complaint, filed with the corresponding prosecution, accuses Laiño de usurpation of authority, titles and honors in ideal contest with false testimony (Articles 247, 54 and 275 of the Criminal Code). The lawyers argue that Laiño, who served as a civil official in the Criminal Division of the Police of Entre Ríos, performed tasks that exceeded their formation and administrative role, including the opening of blocked phones, digital dismissals and photographic sampling in the framework of the investigation.
The main questioning is that Laiño would have submitted expert reports in the case of Fernando Pastorizzo without having the specific training in forensic computer science or being legally enabled for it. This point was exposed in a labor demand that Laiño itself began against the Provincial Autonomous Institute of Entre Ríos Insurance (IAPER), in which she acknowledged having been forced to perform tasks outside her profession under pressure from prosecutors and police authorities.
The impact on Galarza’s conviction
One of the most relevant aspects of the complaint is that the expertise carried out by Laiño included the intervention on the Pastorizzo cell phone, which would have been key in the reconstruction of the facts that derived in the sentence of life imprisonment of Nahir Galarza. LA defense of Galarza argues that if the computer experts were carried out by a person without the proper technical accreditation, the results of these tests should be invalidatedwhich could mean a rethinking of the case and the review of the conviction.
According to Galarza’s lawyers, the documentation presented in Laiño’s labor demand confirms that she admitted to having performed expert tasks without being enabled, which would seriously compromise the validity of her testimony in the trial.
Declarations and evidence
In the labor demand, Liño detailed episodes in which Gualeguaychú prosecutors ordered him to carry out expertise under pressure. One of the most striking episodes he said occurred in December 2017, when Order of prosecutor Sergio Rondoni Caffahe moved to the morgue along with a police officer to try to unlock the pastorizzo phone using his fingerprint. This revelation is key, since it shows that obtaining evidence in the cause was carried out with questionable procedures.
Besides, Laiño mentioned that in the trial for the homicide of Pastorizzo, when asked about his profession, his answer was “graduated in Bromatology”but depending on the context, the judges avoided delving into details about their technical abilities in forensic computer science.
The Judgment of the Entre Ríos Labor Chamber in the cause of Laiño against the IAPSER corroborated that the former official did not have training in computer experts and that she underwent work situations that caused serious psychological sequelae, so she was granted compensation for disability of 24.3%.
Possible consequences
If justice proves that Laiño did not have the formation or authorization to perform expertise in the case of Nahir Galarza, the possibility of questioning the evidence used in the trial would open and, eventually, present a request for review of the conviction.
The new scenario could represent an unexpected turn in the case that shocked Argentina and revive the debate on the action of justice in the conviction of the young entrerriana.
By rn
Image gallery
