Colorado Róga burning conviction: Critics question identification of sole defendant

A sentencing tribunal has handed down a five-year, three-month prison sentence to Vivian Genes for her role in the 2021 burning of Colorado Róga, a significant political headquarters. However, Genes was released immediately after the verdict, as the sentence was considered fully served by the time she had already spent under house arrest throughout the legal proceedings.

The decision has drawn criticism from Genes' defense team and various social organizations. They argue that the prosecution failed to conclusively identify Genes as the perpetrator. Her lawyer, Guillermo Ferreiro, highlighted that the evidence presented, including photos and videos, showed an individual with their face covered. Ferreiro stated that it was never scientifically proven or supported by witness testimony that Genes was the person responsible, a claim she has consistently denied.

“

The tribunal considered proven that Vivian Genes, at night, around 8:00 PM, with her face covered, lit a banner that another person dragged to Colorado Róga and continued the fire that had already started. She had her face covered, so for us, it was never scientifically proven or by means of a witness or in any way that it was her who did it, which she denies at all times.

Ferreiro further explained that the tribunal based its conviction partly on photos showing Genes wearing similar clothing to the unidentified individual and on perceived physical similarities. These images, he contended, were taken months before the incident during student protests unrelated to the events of the burning. The defense maintains that such evidence is insufficient for a criminal conviction, as it only generates suspicion, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case stems from a period of intense social unrest in March 2021, when thousands protested against the government. The burning of Colorado Róga occurred during these demonstrations. The defense team is analyzing the court's ruling and plans to file an appeal within the 15-day window, asserting that an acquittal would have been the appropriate outcome.

“

In our opinion, that is not sufficient proof of identity; it can generate doubt, suspicion, but suspicion is not enough to convict in criminal matters, so we requested and continue to believe that an acquittal was appropriate.