that […] they had participated directly in the homicide.”96 This was because, according to the court, there was a “deviation” from the “common plan” designed by the state’s machine of repression, which “after the kidnapping, consisted of transferring the victim to the clandestine detention center so that, by means of interrogations and torture, information could be secured to destroy the other members of the political organization to which they belonged and then to decide on their final fate; all the more so because it involved a “highly profitable target,” that is Julién [sic] Cáceres, because he belonged to the military sector of the Uruguayan P.V.P.”97 95. On September 18, 2017, Anatole Larrabeiti, as a complainant, requested the recusal of the judge from the case because he would not be impartial and independent, because of the alleged “evident, multiple, reiterated, inexplicable, and conscious delays and omissions incurred by [the judge] when investigating the gravest crimes against humanity.” In this request, there is a list of five briefs submitted over a period of four years to urge the judge “to fulfill his primary and essential obligation to investigate. Not only extremely grave crimes of which the passive parties were minors, but also others referred to as “war booty”: usurpation and looting perpetrated by the “patotas” (gangs) who plundered and took over all the assets of the Julien–Grisonas family.” According to the petition, the judge in the case “kept silent or provided late and insufficient responses” to the successive petitions for investigation, and it was only after a complaint was filed with the Council of Magistrates that an order was issued to investigate the case of the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings, although with a partial and incomplete scope.98 Likewise, in said brief Anatole Larrabeiti pointed out that, when the court in charge of the investigation received the evidence for Case No. 1627 in order to investigate “the crimes of deprivation of liberty and torture perpetrated against Anatole and Victoria”:99 [t]he prosecution of Nerone and Gutiérrez, in which the [the judge] provided detailed accounts of the heinous behavior to which the children were also subjected to, had just been ordered. But, without any explanations, he failed to indict the persons being prosecuted for the crimes of which Anatole and Victoria were the victims, letting them go, and without any explanation, safe and removed from being brought to trial regarding their parents. […] The exclusion of the case of the minors from the objective of prosecuting the “Plan Condór” case, which was added to the identical exclusion of the “Guillamondeguy” case, highlights, on the one hand, their unexplainable marginalization and, on the other hand, a severe deviation from the precise guidelines of the TOF1. And, above all, a flagrant failure to fulfill the essential and primary obligation of investigating what was incumbent upon [the judge] [the highlighted parts are from the original text]. 96. Against the judgment of September 11, 2017, the defense attorney, the Attorney General’s Office, and the complainants filed an appeal. On February 27, 2019, the Fourth Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court of Cassation partially overturned the judgment being challenged, sending back the proceedings to the lower court (a quo) for its substantiation. Among the aspects overturned by the Federal Court, there is the acquittal of the death of Mario Julien, which it qualified as arbitrary. Regarding this, it indicated that “the circumstance in which the victim was shot down in his home or in the streets, as in the case of Julién [sic] Cáceres, does not prevent reaching the conclusion that his physical elimination was not part of one of the potential ends of the systematic plan of repression.”100 3. Criminal case No. 1351 “Nicolaides Cristino and others on the abduction, detention, and concealment of minors” Judicial Branch of the Nation. Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Appeal Court, Chamber IV, February 27, 2019, pp. 4, 5, 95, 164, 167, and 168. Available at: https://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-33494-Anulan-absoluciones-en-una-causa-por-delitos-de-lesa-humanidad.html 97 Judicial Branch of the Nation. Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Appeal Court, Chamber IV, February 27, 2019, p. 169. Available at: https://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-33494-Anulan-absoluciones-en-una-causa-por-delitos-de-lesa-humanidad.html 98 Annex XX. Brief from Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez entitled “Peremptory challenge” submitted in Case No. 2.637/04. No date, pp. 3-5. Annex 2 to the brief from the petitioner, September 18, 2017. 99 Annex XX. Brief from Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez entitled “Peremptory challenge” submitted in Case 2.637/04. No date, pp. 6-7. Annex 2 to the brief from the petitioner, September 18, 2017. 100 Judicial Branch of the Nation. Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Appeal Court, Chamber IV, February 27, 2019, pp. 211-214. Available at: https://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-33494-Anulan-absoluciones-en-una-causa-por-delitos-de-lesa-humanidad.html 96