After almost five months, numerous postponements of hearings and procedural appeals, on Monday the Argentine justice system will finally examine the request to drop the charges presented by the lawyers of Hugo Auradou and Oscar Jegou, the two French rugby players accused of aggravated rape in July.
In the judicial center of Mendoza (west), the lawyers of the appellant, a 39-year-old Argentine mother of two children, and those of the players will discuss behind closed doors the dismissal requested at the end of August by the representatives of the two young national teams from 9 am (1 pm in France ). The prosecution will ask for the charge to be dismissed, as announced at the end of the investigation. The judge presiding over the hearing could make his decision immediately, or more likely question it within a few days, according to the parties involved.
11,000 km away, the two 21-year-olds, who returned to France at the beginning of September after the green light from the Argentine fields, resumed the course of their lives as rugby players: from October for Auradou, from the beginning of November for Jegou. Both played again this weekend in the Top 14.
A sporting “normality” that would almost make one forget that they remain accused of aggravated rape committed in a match, risking between eight and 20 years in prison if found guilty. If there is a trial, which the Prosecutor’s Office will not take into consideration.
“The initial accusation has lost force”
Auradou and Jegou are accused of alleged events that occurred on the night between 6 and 7 July in a hotel room in Mendoza, where the French XV had just played a test match against Argentina. Both stated from the beginning that the sexual relations with the complainant, which they had in a nightclub, were consensual and free of violence. The complainant’s lawyer, however, denounced the rape with “terrible violence”.
Whether or not consent is at the heart of rape cases, the gap in this case appears enormous between the radically opposing versions of the protagonists. The only convergence: there were in fact sexual acts in the hotel room between the players and the complainant, all in a heavily alcoholic context.
During the investigations, from the analysis of the testimonies, the video surveillance images, the audio messages (of the complainant with a friend, in particular), “it clearly emerges (…) that the initial accusation has lost strength”, he observed the accusation by authorizing the return of the players to France. Who had spent, at the beginning of July, just over a week in preventive detention, then almost a month under house arrest in Mendoza.
The plaintiff’s lawyer denounces “biased” justice.
For their lawyers it is a “scandalous complaint”, a “malicious lie (…) with financial aims” of compensation, “without which there is no other explanation”, believes for the AFP Me German Hnatow .
Natacha Romano, the plaintiff’s attorney, claims her client did not consent and was brutally assaulted. And in the course of the proceedings he increasingly attacked a judicial system that he considered “biased”, even following orders: the players’ lawyer is the brother of the Minister of Justice. The complainant herself described the feeling of having been “abandoned” by the Argentine justice system.
Me Romano tried to challenge the two prosecutors in charge of the investigation, and then tried it again last Friday. Appeals rejected. “Incessant attempts to obstruct, to delay, to quibble,” Mr. Hnatow railed, as the tone rose among Argentine lawyers. With, on one side of the plaintiff, threats of future complaints against a player’s lawyer, on the other the increasingly less veiled mention of future “requests for compensation” by the players.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert
Time.news Editor: Good day, and welcome to our interview segment. Today, we’re diving into a highly discussed case involving two French rugby players, Hugo Auradou and Oscar Jegou, who are accused of aggravated rape in Argentina. With us is legal expert Dr. Emilia Torres, who specializes in international law and sexual assault cases. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Torres.
Dr. Emilia Torres: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.
Editor: Let’s start with the current situation. After several months of delays, the Argentine justice system is finally set to examine the request from the players’ lawyers to drop the charges. How significant is this moment in the judicial process?
Dr. Torres: It’s quite significant. The length of the proceedings and the multiple postponements suggest a complex case, often seen in high-profile disputes. The fact that they’re now at the point of a hearing indicates that the court is prepared to address the merits of the case directly, which could lead to a resolution—either a dismissal of charges or a move toward a trial.
Editor: The players claim that their interactions with the complainant were consensual, contrasting with the allegation of “terrible violence” made by the complainant’s lawyer. How does the legal system navigate such starkly opposing narratives?
Dr. Torres: Navigating such contrasting narratives is indeed challenging for the legal system. Consent is crucial in sexual assault cases, and establishing the context—including any evidence of alcohol consumption—is important. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual acts were non-consensual, while the defense will aim to demonstrate consent. The evidence collected, such as testimonies and surveillance footage, will play a key role in shaping the court’s understanding of the event.
Editor: You mentioned the evidence collected, including video surveillance and audio messages. How effective is this type of evidence in court, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual violence?
Dr. Torres: Such evidence can be highly effective, especially when it provides clarity on the events that occurred. Video surveillance may capture crucial moments that can either corroborate or contradict the testimonies. Audio messages may reveal the mindset and feelings of the complainant shortly after the encounter, providing context that could influence the court’s perspective on consent. However, the interpretation of these materials can vary greatly, depending on how they are presented and argued in court.
Editor: With both players now back in France, they’ve resumed their rugby careers. How does the public perception of this case impact their lives and careers, especially considering the serious allegations they face?
Dr. Torres: The public perception can have a profound impact. While they may be continuing with their rugby careers, the allegations can follow them, influencing sponsorships, team dynamics, and public support. Their ability to perform might be scrutinized, and while they seek to move on, the specter of the case may linger, particularly if a trial occurs or public sentiment shifts. The duality of their “normal” sporting lives against the backdrop of such serious accusations creates a complex employment and social environment for them.
Editor: Lastly, if the judge decides to proceed with the case, what can we expect in terms of the legal process that follows?
Dr. Torres: Should the case proceed, we can expect a full trial where both sides will present their evidence and arguments. The prosecution will need to establish its case clearly, while the defense will counter with their narrative and discredit any weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Throughout this process, the media will likely remain highly engaged, influencing public opinion and potentially impacting the proceedings themselves. Ultimately, the judge or jury’s decision will hinge on the strength of the evidence presented and the ability of each side to persuasively tell their story.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Torres, for your insights into this complicated case. We will certainly keep our readers updated as the situation develops.
Dr. Torres: Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. It’s crucial to keep discussing these important issues in our society.