Federal Revolution: the judge aggravated the procedural situation of the daughter of the "Coconut" basile

Wednesday November 23, 2022 | 7:56 p.m.

Federal Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi notified Sabrina Basile, a member of the far-right group Federal Revolution, that she had made a “material error” when she was prosecuted 20 days ago for “apology for the crime” and aggravated her procedural situation.

Thus, the daughter of former soccer coach Alfio “Coco” Basile went from being prosecuted for a crime that includes one month to one year in prison to another that has sentences of three to eight years.

Sabrina Basile was prosecuted on November 3 for article 213 of the Penal Code, “apology for crime”, but Martínez de Giorgi notified her today that “due to a material error, the adverb ‘bis’ was omitted to be entered next to article 213”.

Those three letters substantially change the accusation, since 213 bis establishes that “anyone who organizes or takes part in permanent or temporary groups whose main or accessory object is to impose their ideas or fight will be punished with imprisonment or imprisonment for three to eight years. those of others by force or fear”.

This figure was originally applied to the other three defendants, Jonathan Morel, Leonardo Sosa and Gastón Guerra, also members of the Federal Revolution.

The “material error” -considered the judge- “deserves to be rectified”, so that three weeks after the prosecution Basile was involved in the case “in order to the fact for which she was investigated, considering her co-author criminally responsible for the crime foreseen and punished by article 213 bis of the Penal Code of the Nation”.

The curious thing about the case is that Basile was the protagonist today of a hearing for the appeal against her prosecution, so her lawyers came to that instance defending her for a crime but they found that -in reality- she was accused of another.

This could open a complex instance of annulments, considering that the defendant was in a position to invoke that her constitutional guarantee of “defense in trial” was violated.

Leave a Comment