“The number of acts committed -11 crimes- play against him; the plurality of victims -two directly affected-; the commissive modality of consummated crimes, taking advantage of the particular context of violence provoked and promoted from their particular psychopathic personality traits, using physical and psychological violence of relevant intensity and persistence, as an instrument of domination and control; the quality of the motives that led him to commit a crime, totally vile, despicable and selfish impulses – tending to satisfy his own desires, breaking the affection and loyalty deposited by his partner-; the personal ties with the victims, by violating the relationship of trust of the affective bond that united them, and primarily the notable extent of the damage caused to mental health”, was highlighted in the grounds of the 16-year sentence imposed on Bruno Matias Vuirli Saragusti. On July 4, the Second Nomination Criminal Sentencing Chamber unanimously found him guilty of the crimes of “simple sexual abuse”, “sexual abuse with carnal access”, “theft”, “slight injuries”, “damages”, “breaking the home”, “simple threats”, “slight injuries classified as having mediated a relationship”, “coercion” and “instigation to suicide”.
The Court was made up of judges Silvio Martoccia, Luis Guillamondegui and Rodrigo Morabito. The vote was prepared by Judge Guillamondegui.
In the grounds it was noted that the sexual assaults were committed “within a particular context of gender violence. Vuirli Saragusti had experience in this for a long time”. According to the testimonies of some witnesses, “a pattern of macho behavior was noticed, which over time was cemented and perfected.”
In the foundations, it was considered that the defendant was perhaps “promoted by psychopathic personality traits, when he is placed in a place of absolute mastery of the situation. The psychopath is a subject who moves based on his own rules, ‘his own code’; the neighbor only cares if he is functional to his interests and faced with the opposite limits, he redoubles the bet ”.
In this sense, the testimony of the forensic psychologist was valued. The professional pointed out that the particular behavior of Vuirli Saragusti is compatible with the psychopathic traits of her personality. These brought repercussions on the mental health of one of her victims, generating a growing low self-esteem, psychic damage and difficulties to face and solve the daily inconveniences of life in a healthy way.
“The fact and the authorship of Vuirli Saragusti are verified from the growing scenario of gender violence promoted by the defendant, from the traits of his psychopathic and macho personality. He cunningly knew how to take advantage of the emotional weaknesses of his victim, trying, in this case, to govern his will in order to avoid the actions of Justice and criminal prosecution, “he explained.
In detail, Vuirli Saragusti took advantage of the facilities derived from the context of gender violence promoted by him, exercised physical and psychological violence against his victims, “through different, repeated, continuous and serious acts, some of them prosecuted.” Thus, he placed his victim in a deep state of emotional vulnerability to the point of concretizing his “depersonalization”. “The sentimental relationship that linked Vuirli Saragusti with his victim unfolded in a context of intense violence and from an asymmetry of power, where the former manipulated and controlled the life of the latter, who was seen as a mere object related to his interests,” he noted.
“The actions of Vuirli Saragusti resemble the work of a termite that enters the wood and begins to eat it little by little, and over time, that structure falls,” described one of the experts. With this comparison, the actions of the aggressor towards his victims were described. “Vuirli Saragusti can be conceived as ‘a hunter’ who selects ‘his prey’, both vulnerable, and who with patience, tenacity and time gains space emotionally, earning their trust, to later transform them into ‘his psychological and sexual’”, described the magistrate.
Given the characteristics of Vuirli Saragusti, who manifested certain personality traits based on patriarchal and sexist structures, the Court considered the therapeutic approach pertinent. The idea is, in some way, to reverse personal conditions that, “beyond their individual freedom of thought, may lead to the commission of subsequent gender crimes, as opposed to the purpose of special prevention pursued with the execution of the prison sentence. temporary lockdown.
“No means no”
In a separate paragraph, in the foundations, the Court assessed, without prejudice to the agreements in the field of sexuality that were agreed upon (the defendant and his eventual partner) that “in the face of the refusal of one of them, the other should not advance, since that doing so, in what is of interest here, would affect the sexual freedom of the other, which entails neither more nor less than the right to have sexual intercourse with whoever they want, in the way they want, and even not having it too.” As this pact was subscribed from word and trust, it was stressed, respect for the other was the guarantee of its fulfillment. In the event of his transgression, “who, in principle, attested to it, was the one who complied with the agreement. “‘The No, is NO’ (sic) and the refusal in the face of a situation has a single and unmistakable meaning: Vuirli Saragusti consciously and voluntarily disregarded”, the magistrates concluded in the grounds of the sentence.