Trial into missing five-year-old’s disappearance in doubt
First preliminary hearing exposes the scale of the proceedings over the disappearance of five-year-old Loan Danilo Peña in Corrientes in June 2024; Prosecutor Carlos calls for acceleration, questions limits put on his work; There are two parallel cases and 17 people indicted in all.
Twenty months have gone by since the disappearance of Loan Danilo Peña and nothing has been solved. Not only does nobody know what happened to him, but nothing has been specified about the start of the trial against those who are allegedly responsible.
The scheduled date for the preliminary hearing – October 7, 2026 – has now been called into question and the Federal Oral Court of Corrientes itself must decide when one of the most sensitive trials in the last few years is to start.
A hearing was conducted at the auditorium of the Law School of Universidad Nacional del Nordeste this week. There, judges Fermín Amado Ceroleni, Simón Pedro Bracco, Eduardo Ariel Belforte and substitute magistrate Enrique Bosch headed a key hearing, intended to tidy up the evidence and set the rules of the future debate.
The formal objective was a technical one: to cleanse the case file, limit the evidence to what is relevant and prevent the trial from being unnecessarily prolonged. For that reason, the court granted a 15-day extension to the parties for them to review their offerings and adjust their strategies. It further confirmed that the proceedings would be in person and is expected to last several months.
However, the main point of the hearing changed when general prosecutor Carlos Adolfo Schaefer took the floor and asked to review the timetable. The court official warned that the case demands an urgent response from the court and reminded that the child is still missing. His request was not only echoed by the complainants but also by some defence lawyers.
The motion forced the court to go back on its own decision. After a recess, the judges announced that they will reconsider the initial date and inform the new timetable when the evidence is admitted. This left the trial without a confirmed start, and opened the possibility of an earlier date.
The hearing also left another less visible, yet equally relevant, dispute exposed. Schaefer questioned the limitations on the joint work of prosecutors and court officials, by claiming that teamwork is not only permitted by law but also strengthens the investigation and ensures its efficacy. He even said that, if that restriction is maintained, he will appeal before the Cassation Court.
In parallel, deputy general prosecutor Tamara Ahimará Pourcel outlined the evidentiary strategy. She pointed out that the State Prosecutor’s Office plans to summon over 100 witnesses to testify and that, depending on the defences’ stance, that number could increase.
The plaintiffs, in turn, asked for new measures, among them a reconstruction of the events and an analysis of the communications between those indicted, which suggests a debate centred not only on what happened but also on subsequent behaviour as well.