CED/C/10/D/1/2013 On 4 June 2014, the Seventh Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court decided “not to grant the application to appear as private criminal plaintiff made by Ms. Estela Deolinda Yrusta, who is represented by Dr. Gabriel Ganón”, on the grounds that, “in accordance with article 67 II of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Santa Fe, legal standing is granted to alleged victims of a criminal offence or their protected heirs, categories to which the prospective plaintiff, Estela Deolinda Yrusta, does not belong. Accordingly, in view of her lack of standing to act in the capacity claimed, her application must be rejected as inadmissible”. 7.3 On 13 June 2014, the authors lodged a further appeal, reiterating their request to join the proceedings as plaintiffs. On 16 June 2014, the appeal was admitted without suspensive effect and was referred to a higher court. On 30 June 2014, the authors were notified of the composition of the court. On 14 November 2014, more than one year and a half after the authors’ first request for recognition as parties to the prosecution, the Santa Fe Appeal Court denied the appeal filed by the Provincial Defender on behalf of the authors. The court, presided over by a single judge, considered that, in application of articles 1, 2 and 21 of Act No. 13.014, the Provincial Defender does not have standing to represent the authors in the Province of Santa Fe. It further considered that “persons seeking recognition as private criminal plaintiffs must be provided with legal representation at government expense if they lack the financial resources needed to pursue a criminal trial, […] but it is not the responsibility of the Provincial Public Criminal Defence Service to provide such representation”.4 The authors contend that they turned to the Provincial Defender’s Office because it is the only independent body with legal capacity to represent them in Santa Fe. They add that the Appeal Court and the other judicial authorities have not specified which body would, in fact, be the appropriate forum to give them effective access to justice. They consider that the Court’s interpretation is inconsistent with international standards and the legal representation services offered by the federal public defender system. The authors also consider that the Court’s interpretation impedes their access to justice and precludes the proper investigation of the disappearance and death of their brother. 7.4 The authors submit that, in more than a year and a half, they have lodged three appeals and one motion for reconsideration for denial of appeal concerning the application of Mr. Yrusta’s relatives to appear as plaintiffs, which was resolved in the negative. They consider that the remedies that are available to them are not effective and that the corresponding proceedings have exceeded all reasonable time limits. They contend that they have been subjected to ongoing revictimization by those who should ensure that they have access to their rights. 7.5 The authors express surprise at the State party’s failure to address the issue of the torture inflicted on Mr. Yrusta and the question of his enforced disappearance for a number of days following his transfer from the Province of Córdoba to a different jurisdiction from that which had been agreed upon with his family. The authors point out that the State party has also failed to address these facts in the context of the present communication and that it has violated article 17 of the Convention. 7.6 The authors further consider that the steps taken to gather evidence in the proceedings relating to the death of their brother were aimed at confirming the version of events given by the prison administration and that the authorities in charge of the investigation are deliberately delaying the investigation into the facts of the case. For instance, witness statements were taken from the personnel on duty on the night of the death, who are those likely to have been involved in the death of Mr. Yrusta, but no medical examination was performed to record the injuries sustained elsewhere on the body, 4 10 Case file No. 279, 2014, “Yrusta, Roberto Agustín (his death) re/Appeal”, Santa Fe, 14 November 2014, p. 2. GE.16-05682