The country’s Supreme Court of Justice rejected an appeal by the defense of former Buenos Aires judge, Cesar Milazo, who sought to avoid being accused of being the head of an illegal association, in the context of the case in which he was convicted of belonging to a huge gang made up of police officers, barracks, prisoners and judicial employees in La Plata.
The Supreme Court, signed by Horacio Rosati, Carlos Rosencrantz and Riccardo Lorenzetti, rejected the offer, considering that it was not a final ruling and could not be compared with another ruling.
Milazo had questioned the decision of the Buenos Aires Supreme Court, which ordered the Regional Court of Cassation to review a proposal submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to toughen his accusation and consider him the head of the criminal organization.
The second oral criminal court sentenced Milazo, who served as a bail judge in La Plata, in 2023 to seven years and ten months in prison for being part of an unlawful association, illegally possessing a firearm for conditional civilian use and concealing it. In the same ruling, former commissioner Gustavo Burshteyn, former officer Gustavo Mena, Adrian Maness, Carlos Bertone, and Enrique “Kiki” Petrolo, among others, were convicted.
According to the investigation, the gang operated between 2010 and 2015 in our city, carrying out house robberies, fraud, and assaults, with police and judicial coverage.
According to the Public Prosecution, the criminals moved in the liberated areas, and if they were arrested, they received procedural benefits from the relevant officials.
Milazzo resigned from his position in June 2017 to avoid a political trial, and was arrested in August 2018 during an operation that took place during his stay in Jurina, where a weapon was seized.
After the conviction, the prosecution insisted on aggravating the charge by asserting that the former judge was leading the organization, but the court understood that he was just another member.
The Buenos Aires Supreme Court raised this allegation and ordered the case to be returned to the Cassation Chamber for review.
About The Author
