“`html
Parole Granted to Attacker Despite Victim Notification, Sparking Controversy in Chile
A certificate from the Coyhaique Guarantee Court confirms that Nabila Rifo, the victim of a violent assault, was officially notified of her attacker, Mauricio Ortega‘s, request for parole. This revelation directly contradicts statements made by Chile’s Minister of Women and Gender Equality, Antonia orellana, and raises serious questions about the National Service for Women and Gender Equality’s (SernamEG) handling of the case.
The notification, delivered on September 9th, occurred nearly a month before the Parole Commission granted Ortega his conditional release. According to a report by BBCL Investiga, sernameg – the sole entity representing rifo in the proceedings – failed to advise her of her right to oppose the parole request, a critical oversight that could have altered the outcome.
“Duly Notified” But Unrepresented
Minister Orellana initially asserted that Rifo had not received proper notification, stating on social media, “The person who should have been notified was the victim and the victim has informed us that she was not.” She further claimed, “We believe her.” However, the court certificate proves otherwise. Despite being “duly notified,” records show Rifo did not submit any objections or arguments against Ortega’s release.
SernamEG responded by claiming the notification was sent to Rifo’s outdated address. however, legal experts emphasize that both the victim and her legal counsel are responsible for updating contact information with the court. There is no record of Rifo or her lawyer submitting a change of address request.
Contradictory Statements and a Dismissed Lawyer
The BBCL Investiga report also uncovered that the notification reached the email inbox of SernamEG’s former legal representative assigned to Rifo’s case. Crucially, this lawyer had been dismissed earlier in the year, and her email account was deactivated as early as 2019 following disciplinary action. despite this, SernamEG did not assign a replacement to oversee Ortega’s parole request.
Minister Orellana defended the agency’s actions, stating in a recent interview that the service’s legal depiction concluded in 2017, once Ortega’s sentence became enforceable.This claim, though, is directly refuted by the sponsorship agreement signed on August 4, 2016. The document explicitly states that SernamEG’s lawyer would represent Rifo “until the complete execution of the sentence,” scheduled for 2034. This included actively monitoring and opposing any parole requests before the Parole Commission.
Upon the dismissal of her assigned lawyer, Rifo had two options: receive a replacement from SernamEG or retain private counsel. Neither option was presented to her. By April of this year, Ortega’s intention to seek parole was publicly available on the Judiciary’s virtual platform, yet Rifo remained unrepresented.
As of today, official records still list the dismissed lawyer as Rifo’s sole legal representative. The situation underscores a systemic failure to protect a vulnerable victim and raises serious questions about accountability within SernamEG.
Minister Orellana concluded a recent statement by reiterating the importance of protecting the dignity of women who have experienced violence and calling for the avoidance of revictimization. However, the evidence suggests that, in this case, the act
