Over the past few weeks, we have been particularly shocked from the beginning of the case of Antonia Barra, who will make the unfortunate decision to commit suicide because of sexual abuse. Among the recent cases of gender-based violence is also that of a family in Santiago Centro, where the femid killed his partner, his partner, his partner, beat his partner’s brother and committed suicide. In this pandemic scenario, there has been an explosion of cases of consummate femicides, doubling the figure compared to the same date of the previous year, according to figures from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The facts are clear, gender-based violence is suffered in different spaces, and neither the protection that our homes could be ensures we are free of it.
We know this well from a new case that shocks us in these weeks, that of the 16-year-old amber Cornejo Llanos, who was missing for 8 days until her body parts were found in the residence of her mother’s partner, Hugo Bustamante. It is to him who is syndicated as responsible, after the rigor skills, for which he has been formalized. This man is a known aggressor, as he was released at the age of 11 to serve time for the double qualified homicide of his ex-partner and son, from an effective 27-year prison sentence. So far, most of the things are that we all know: repudiation of the murderer, demonstrations in the streets of German Villa, saucepans and criticisms, many criticisms and accountability to other women who “led the stage” to make this misfortune take place.
Where do the reviews come from? From the media, social media, the political world, the Undersecretary of Children herself, Carol Bown, among others. The latter, even expressing its understanding before the citizen voices who clamored to restore the death penalty, as if it could help eradicate gender-based violence.
In that sea of criticism and search for responsible, not even Amber itself was left out, especially at first. In this, as in other cases, much of the comments on social media pointed to the arguments that blame the victims themselves: that the place where they were, what it was, how he dressed or what he did what he did.
After that, new ‘guilty’ potentials began to emerge, now for enscribbding to reach this brutal crime. First, Amber’s mother, Denisse Llanos, who is questioned for not joining the search for her daughter, even because she does not seem hurt as a good mother should be, according to the patriarchal imaginary. This, although a week after Amber’s disappearance, prosecutor Maria José Bowen noted that “at this time, there is no concrete indication linking it to the crime (…) she is the one who decides to give statement and hand over the information that ultimately ends with the discovery of Amber’s body.”
Second, former President Michelle Bachelet, who allegedly pardoned the murderer Bustamante, thus contributing to the triggering of the tragedy. This information was wrong, but by the time it was denied, incriminating messages had already circulated extensively on social media, some very aggressive, against the former representative.
The third ‘guilty’ would then be Judge Silvana Donoso, who was accused as responsible in her capacity as Chair of the Probation Commission of the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso, an instance that determined Bustamante’s freedom in 2016, despite failing to serve the entire sentence for double homicide. Donoso is from there the villain of the film, and in such a condition has been the subject of terribles, threats and even a possible constitutional accusation for remarkable abandonment of duties. This, although a group of more than thirty women – lawyers, legal and criminology academics, and human rights defenders – published a letter in support of the judge, highlighting her career, in addition to her authorship in the first gender-based sentence in the context of the pandemic.
In all this, where is the focus lost? It is known that the criminal is a man, who had already killed a woman in a context where he exercised domination, which led to the commission of crimes within the framework of affective close relationships, where he feels that he has a power or at least the ability to prove who is in charge. Their action is completely repudiable and should be analyzed with the seriousness and depth it requires, as it is the clear sample of thousands of thousands of other men who “lose control” when his will is not the one that prevails. Although Hugo Bustamante is charged with the crimes of rape, murder and illegal burial, he ends up showing himself as a monster, a beast, the embodiment of the most animal impulses; in short, as a victim of himself.
On the other hand, there is virtually no criticism about the role that Amber’s biological father played, moreover, he is tacitly justified as the man who works in a region far away from which his daughter lived, who was clearly not well, since he was linked to a Sename program. However, she excels in the media that she will initiate legal action against her ex-partner, the mother of the murdered young woman, because from her perspective she would be complicit in the facts. In the media, journalists have insisted on analysing the responsibility of the mother – who has remained so far as a witness – and have strongly urged Prosecutor Bowen to analyze this investigative clue. The prosecutor for reasons of reservation of the investigation has had to defend in various instances her caution in acting, since, although we do not want to venture to dereach the mother, there must be objective facts and analysed by her that justify the protection and non-imputation of Amber’s mother at the moment.
However, we know that this case, according to our national legislation, would not shape the crime of femicide, because there is no sex-affective link between the aggressor and his victim. However, there is no doubt that this crime is the ultimate expression of gender-based violence that leads to the death of the adolescent. The domestic violence law in force in Chile since 2005, is a law quite criticized for being lax, for not contemplating violence in pololeo, between people members of sexual diversity, among others, but that in addition to that gives, in cases that it does, minor sanctions to the offenders, which do not imply real protection of women and victims of gender-based violence. It is known that there has been a bill for some time now that seeks to improve current legislation, but we well know that there is no law capable of deraging a patriarchy that does not know of social classes, nationalities, age or educational level of people. Moreover, because law is a field that “expresses the ideological preferences of the dominant sectors while realizing the milestones of breaking with that power.” (Fries, L. and Matus, V., 2000)
However, in Chile it is committed to the legal route almost as a sacred contraption, when in fact many times – as in this case – these are issues and problems that long exceed the field of law. The debate on how to move towards more respectful, fair and egalitarian ways of life among all demands the contribution of multiple disciplines and fields of knowledge. It also requires the Chilean State to fulfil its duty to take appropriate measures – certainly more than just legal ones – to “modify the cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to eliminating customary and other prejudices and practices that are based on the idea of inferiority or superiority of any of the sexes or stereotypical roles of men and women” , as set out in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. (United Nations, 1981)
Fabiola Miranda Pérez, Academic of the Department of Social Work at Alberto Hurtado University. Member of the Gender Research and Sexual Diversity Program- GEDIS- UAH.
Paulina Morales Aguilera, Academic of the Department of Social Work at Alberto Hurtado University.
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
