Arriola

Arriola, Sebastián, et al on case No. 9080
Buenos Aires, August 25th, 2009.

1– This case was initiated on January 19, 2006, as a consequence of the report furnished by the Chief Police Officer of the Rosario Section of the Argentine Federal Police, containing information of the police records compiled by such Section for the the violation of Law 23.737. From such records arose that allpersons under arrest had a sporadic contact with the property located at Nicaragua street, on the corner of Forest street, where the police observed movements that were typical of narcotics retail trade.
Consequently, it was decided that the case would be investigated. The preliminary investigation was delegated to the prosecutor on duty, who held that an individual may be involved in the trading ofnarcotics in the aforementioned property, based on the observation and surveillance tasks conducted by the police, the photographs taken and the images recorded in the videocassette that was attached to the record, and the information contained in the copies of the cases connected with the case herein.
Therefore, a search and seizure warrant was requested and issued. This proceeding was conductedon February 26, 2006, pursuant to the information contained in pages 63/64 of the case, and on April 27, 2006 (pages 119/122). Additionally, within a framework of different several procedural measures adopted in the case, the following cases were attached: No. 1268/05 “Fares, Gustavo Alberto on Law 23.737” ["Fares, Gustavo Alberto s/ ley 23.737"], No. 81/06 “Acevedo, Marcelo Ezequiel; Villareal,Mario Alberto on Law 23.737” [“Acedo, Marcelo Ezequiel; Villarreal, Mario Alberto s/ ley 23.737”] and No. 506/06 “Medina, Gabriel Alejando and Cortejarena, Leandro Andrés on Law 23.737” [“Medina, Gabriel Alejando y Cortejarena, Leandro Andrés s/ ley 23.737”], among others.

2– On August 30, 2007, following the trial (pages 997/1020), the Federal Criminal Trial No.2 of the city of Rosario, provinceof Santa Fé, denied the petition for the declaration of nullity and the petition for unconstitutionality of Section 14, paragraph 2, Law 23.737 filed by the defense, and sentenced:
I) Sebastián Eduardo Arriola or Eduardo Sebastián Arriola, convicted as principal in the first degree for the crime of drug possession for commercialization purposes based on two separate criminal episodes whichconstituted a concurrent offense (Section 55 of the Argentine Criminal Code and Section 5(c) of the Law 23.737), to six years of imprisonment, payment of a fine of ARS 600 (six hundred Argentine pesos) and absolute disqualification for the same term, and ordered him to undergo the rehabilitation treatment set forth in Section 16 of the aforementioned Law;
II) Carlos Alberto Simonetti, convicted asprincipal in the first degree for the crime of drug possession for commercialization purposes based on two separate criminal episodes which constituted a concurrent offense (Section 55 of the Argentine Criminal Code and Section 5(c) of the Law 23.737) to four years of imprisonment, payment of a fine of ARS 500 (five hundred Argentine pesos) and absolute disqualification for the same term (Section 12of the Argentine Criminal Code);

3– The defense lodged an appeal for reversal of judgment in favor of Eduardo Sebastián Arriola, Mónica Beatriz Vázquez, Gustavo Alberto Fares, Marcelo Ezequiel Acedo, Mario Alberto Villareal, Gabriel Alejandro Medina and Leandro Andrés Cortejarena (pages 1101/1130). The trial court denied such appeal (pages 1154/1157) and dismissed the extraordinary appeal basedon a federal question to the Argentine Supreme Court lodged by the defense. Therefore, the defense counsel appointed by the court for Sebastián Arriola y Mónica Beatriz Vázquez (file A.890.XLIV) lodged an appeal requiring the Argentine Supreme Court to accept the appeal dismissed. On May 5, 2009, the Argentine Supreme Court entered a judgment dismissing both the appeal for reversal of judgment...