Process and trial
First accusations and preliminary hearing
The Prosecutor's Office quickly requested the arrest and preventive detention of the owners and guards of the premises, as well as the preventive seizure of Gs. 60 billion (more than 10 million US dollars, for eventual compensation to the victims on the civil side.[32] The guards and owners of the premises were detained and arrested by order of the prosecutor's office on August 2, 2004, charged with “aggravated intentional homicide”, with an assigned sentence of up to 25 years in prison;[33] although during the course of the case, they were benefited several times from prison home; causing the indignation of relatives and victims of the fire, producing successive demonstrations.[34] Other defendants—in addition to the Paiva—were the members of the board María Victoria Cáceres de Paiva, Antolina Burgos de Casaccia, Agustín Alfonzo Martínez, Guillermo Alfonso Segovia, Humberto Casaccia Romagni, and the guards Daniel Areco, Jorge Daniel Penayo Ojeda, Eder Sánchez Martinetti and Ismael Alcaraz.
In the days and months after the fire, several demonstrations and protests were held at the home of the owners of the premises, and even that of the competent authorities - such as Judges (such as Elio Ovelar, Manuel Aguirre, Augusto Melo[35]), prosecutors (such as Teresa Sosa, who was removed from the case a month after the fire after insinuating that she would accuse of manslaughter because the doors were open for her[36]), municipal authorities such as Enrique Riera and Martín Burt (mayor and former mayor of Asunción respectively)—, among others; and in front of the other supermarkets that were still operating from the Ycuá Bolaños chain at that time, in a protest asking for justice.
The owners, shareholders and guards of the premises were accused by the Public Ministry "Ministerio Público (Paraguay)") at the end of December 2004, as well as the architect of the premises - accused in April 2005 - and the competent municipal officials - accused in April 2006 -. All of them were finally convicted in 2008, although the case was divided into three parts, each with different sentences.
On April 11, 2005, the criminal judge of first instance of Lambaré Ramón Augusto Melo Suárez signed a resolution ordering house arrest in favor of Juan Pío Paiva; However, the next day he revoked his resolution and ordered Paiva's transfer to the Police Hospital, because he had health problems, and then returned to the Tacumbú prison. A few days later, the Judge strikingly presented his resignation from office.[37] The case was handed over to the judge of guarantees Rubén Riquelme. From June 13 to 17, 2005, the preliminary hearing was held against the owners, shareholders and guards of the premises at the Club Sol de América sports center "Club Sol de América (Asunción)").[38]
In summary, the owner of the firm Juan Pío Paiva, his son Víctor Daniel Paiva, the guard Daniel Areco, as well as the architect of the premises and the competent municipal officials were prosecuted by the courts of Paraguay, in the investigation carried out by the prosecutor's office. The initial investigation was, in the first part (which investigated the owners and guards of the premises) that by order of Juan Paiva, instructions endorsed by his son Víctor, and carried out by the guard Areco - the only one duly identified by witnesses - the doors of the premises were closed causing many people who could escape and save themselves, ending up dying inside the premises. However, the prosecution ended up accusing on the basis that there was a "pre-established" order, and therefore, a homicide with possible intent, and not directly intended, but indirectly.
The first failed oral and public trial of 2006
After a long investigation, an extensive trial was held that lasted more than four months at a military sports venue. The court - composed of judges Manuel Aguirre, Elio Ovelar and María Doddy Báez - handed down its ruling on December 5, 2006, in which two of the judges - both Aguirre and Ovelar - found that the prosecution failed to prove the intentional participation of the accused, leaving them only responsible as perpetrators of "wrongful homicide", which has a maximum penalty of 5 years.[39] While the last judge was reading the reasons for his decision, the relatives of the victims caused serious disorders when they considered that the sentences for the death of almost 400 people were very low, jumping from their seats and throwing the chairs against the judges, not completing the reading of the sentence.
The protests left the place where the trial was being held to concentrate on the headquarters of the Ycuá Bolaños company, where the police intervened, leaving more than 60 detainees and 49 injured to varying degrees. These massive protests continued for several days, during which even President Nicanor Duarte declared that the sentences were too low.
However, for the victims there was no sentence since the judges' decision was not fully read and the process was interrupted before its conclusion. The Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay admitted this thesis by rejecting the unconstitutionality appeals against the resolution that removed Judges Elio Ovelar and Manuel Aguirre from the case - who were in favor of classifying the event as manslaughter, but not Judge Dody Báez, who considered that the event constituted intentional homicide -, maintaining that there was no arbitrariness or violation of constitutional guarantees. Said resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice gave way for a new trial to be held.[41].
Annulment and postponement of the sentence
Due to the innumerable inhibitions and challenges of the capital's magistrates, the case was passed to magistrates from the interior of the country, specifically from the department of Paraguarí, something unusual in the legal environment. Finally, the court was installed and on August 8, 2007, the trial hearing began.
However, the defense requested that the nature of the trial be determined, that is, whether the previous one was annulled or that one is being continued and, because the court ordered that the incidents would be resolved at the end of the hearing, the defense of Víctor Paiva and others presented a request for recusal against the judges, based on an alleged previous opinion on the annulment of the trial, which caused the suspension of the hearing, which generated regret among the victims.[42][43] The victims protested this delay, demanding the continuity of the process.[44] While the dilatory incidents were being resolved, the sentencing court in the case denied a request for freedom that Juan Pío Paiva had presented.[45][46].
The trial restarted on August 31, 2007, continuing the debates on the type of homicide caused during the tragedy.[47] Due to a previous incident raised by the defense, the sentencing court finally determined that a new trial was being held that cannot be understood as a double jeopardy[48] since the previous trial was null and void for not having concluded.[49].
On September 7 of the same year, Víctor Daniel Paiva regained his freedom, but with imposed restrictions.[50][51] Given this, organizations supporting the victims of the fire demonstrated against this measure, both at the headquarters of the Judiciary and in front of the only location that still belonged to the Ycuá Bolaños chain.[52][53][54] On September 10, 2007, Juan Pío Paiva regained his freedom. freedom.[55][56] The victims continued to demonstrate against these measures.[57].
Closing of debate and beginning of deliberations
On January 9, 2008, the Trial Court ended the trial debate and ordered the beginning of deliberations on the case, announcing that the full and complete reading of the sentence would only be given on February 2 of the same year, arguing that the complexity of the case required a long and careful analysis.[58].
Days before the reading of the trial, the Court issued various security measures, including establishing a security perimeter of three hundred meters where the prohibition of all public demonstrations was ordered. The victims protested against this security measure, describing it as exaggerated, since the constitutional order of Paraguay would not allow this type of judicial measures.[59][60][61] Subsequently, the victims called for a vigil for all Paraguayan citizens, with more than forty citizen and social organizations joining in.[62].
The victims' expectations were to obtain a sentence for intentional homicide until there would be "justice for the case." Felipe Palacios, survivor of the fire and who lost his three young daughters, told Última Hora "Última Hora (Paraguay)") that.
For her part, Francisca Giménez, who lost her daughter and three grandchildren, expressed "I trust that justice will be done and that the accused will be given an exemplary sentence." Meanwhile, on January 31, the Paraguayan press announced that the Sentencing Court would suspend the reading of the sentence if security measures were violated.[64].
final sentence
Both the national and international press gathered to hear the ruling in the case.[65] The reading of the sentence began at 9:00, Paraguay time (13:00 UTC) on the morning of February 2, 2008.[66][67].
After the presentation of the required arguments, in which some of the victims' relatives fainted,[68] the Sentencing Court, made up of judges Germán Torres, Blas Cabriza and Bibiana Benítez, determined that the main defendants: Juan Pío Paiva, Víctor Daniel Paiva and Daniel Areco, were guilty of "simple intentional homicide" due to possible intent),[69] "attempted intentional homicide aggravated" and "exposure of people to dangerous workplaces" (the first two legally related crimes and the third in reference to the conditions of the damaged building), which meant a sentence of 5 to 15 years in prison according to the Paraguayan Penal Code and its modifications at that time.
The prosecutor's investigation determined that by order of Juan Pío Paiva, instructions endorsed by his son Víctor Daniel, the doors of the premises were closed, causing the tragedy, with the guard Daniel Areco being identified as one of those who carried out "the order" to close one of the doors.
Humberto Casaccia was the only member of the company's board of directors, apart from the Paiva, who was convicted. [70] Since the case was divided into 3 parts, the following convicted in the first part were sentenced to the following penalties:
• - Juan Pío Paiva (owner): 12 years in prison: Intentional homicide in an eventual degree. Exposure of people to dangerous workplaces.
• - Víctor Daniel Paiva (co-owner): 10 years in prison: Intentional homicide in an eventual degree.
• - Daniel Areco (guard): 5 years in prison: Intentional homicide in an eventual degree.
• - Humberto Casaccia (shareholder): 2 years and 6 months in prison: Exposure of people to dangerous workplaces.
Areco, having served 2/3 of his sentence, was now able to request his conditional release.[71]
The following were acquitted in this process: María Victoria Cáceres de Paiva (spouse of Juan Pío and shareholder of the company), Antolina Burgos de Casaccia (spouse of Humberto) and Agustín Alfonso (member of the business board), and several guards of the premises – who were under preventive detention for a few months – because only Areco was duly identified by witnesses as having closed one of the doors.
On the other hand, the sentence expressly provided that the convicted persons would not go to jail until the sentence was final (a fact that took months since it would be appealed).[72] The victims, although they admitted that it was a victory that the conviction for intentional homicide was achieved (something obtained due to the pressure they exerted, according to them), expressed their total disappointment and rejection of the light sentences and the benefits that the victims obtained. condemned.[71][73][74][75][76].