Buenos Aires Yoga School

Feb

Buenos Aires Yoga School

by Alessandro Amicarelli - Director of FOB (European Federation for Freedom of Belief)

ABSTRACT: On December 7, 2023, an important development happened in the Argentinian court
case of the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS). The Court of Appeals annulled the elevation to trial of
the defendants and sent the case back to the investigating judge, urging him to evaluate the new
evidence that had surfaced, in dialogue with the parties. The prosecutors filed an appeal in cassation
against the Court of Appeals decision. The BAYS case is paradoxical, as the prosecutors insist that
several mature women were victimized and compelled to work as prostitutes by the movement. On the
other hand, all women deny being victims and having ever worked as prostitutes in their lives. The
article insists on the crucial role of the forensic psychological expertises that found the women “normal”
and believable. It also emphasizes the dissenting opinion of one of the three appeal judges, who would
have simply acquitted all the defendants and closed the case.
KEYWORDS: BAYS, Buenos Aires Yoga School, PROTEX, Brainwashing, Anti-Cult Movement in Argentina.

Introduction
On December 7, 2023, the 2nd Chamber of the National Court of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters of Argentina (hereinafter “Court of Appeals”) rendered three rulings in the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS) case and annulled the elevation to trial of the defendants (Sala 2 de la Cámara Nacional de
Apelaciones en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal de Argentina 2023a, 2023b,2023c). Seventeen BAYS members were prosecuted for alleged human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, money laundering, smuggling, and illicit association. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that the case file must
be returned to the lower court. The latter is urged to examine the newly filedevidence and the constitutional exceptions raised by the defense.

The Journal of CESNUR has published detailed reports by Massimo Introvigne and Susan Palmer on the BAYS and its trial (Introvigne 2023a; Palmer 2023).
This is an extraordinary case where, based on the accusations of one single anti-cult activist, the prosecutors of the anti-human-trafficking unit PROTEX—who have fully embraced (Introvigne 2023b) the unscientific and discredited theory of brainwashing (Introvigne 2022)—insist that a number of mature women were
victimized and forced to work as prostitutes and to transfer the earnings from that activity to the yoga school.
It must be noted that, without exceptions, all the women involved in this case, who are middle-aged professionals, deny being “victims” of the BAYS and having ever worked as prostitutes in their lives. Yet, the prosecutors maintain the paradoxical theory that, having been brainwashed by the BAYS, the women could
have been victims and prostitutes without realizing it (Fautré 2023a, 2023b).

Recent Developments
On July 4, 2023, the reports of the psychiatric and psychological assessments of the alleged victims were delivered. The same day the examining magistrate, Ariel Lijo, informed the prosecution office about his intention to close the investigation stage of the case. In the following days, the defense filed a nullity
action and a plea for lack of action (absence of crime), with requests for the acquittal of all the defendants.
The first legal action (nullity) argued around the fact that the decision of the judge of first instance to close the investigation was hasty and arbitrary, since there had been no prior dialogue between the parties to evaluate and discuss how worth and valuable the expert reports were. According to the defense, they indicated that there were no victims of human trafficking or other crimes committed.
In addition to this lack of evaluation of key evidence (which was requested by the Court of Appeals when reviewing and partially confirming the indictments), the defense pointed out that Judge Lijo himself in his decision of July 4 indicated that it was still necessary to evaluate and collect evidence on the case.
This was in contradiction with the closing of the investigation and created a possible duplication of the procedure. filed would be used to go to trial, instead the remaining unexamined body of evidence remained under the evaluation of the investigating judge.
The second motion presented, invoking the exception of lack of action, stated that at that point of the investigation, it was demonstrated that there was no crime committed.
By this motion, the legal representatives asked for the acquittal of the seventeen defendants and the remaining BAYS accused individuals.
This kind of exception may be raised by the defense when, from the description of the alleged facts or from the examination of the evidence, it is evident that no crime has been committed. In this exception, the defense affirmed that the psychological and psychiatric examinations demonstrated, with scientific rigor
and unanimously, that the nine women, identified in the case as victims, were instead in good mental health state, without indicators that could be compatible with traumas related to mental subjugation or sexual enslavement. The mental health experts found no traits of disorders in the psychosexual sphere of these
women, and a total absence of indicators of vulnerability or any characteristics of submission, emotional dependence, lability, manipulation, or the assumption of a merely passive role in their interpersonal relationships.
The defense added that these reports had been signed in agreement, without exception, both by the experts of the Forensic Medical Corps of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation (CSJN is its Spanish acronym) and by the experts of the defense and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF is its Spanish
acronym).
Consequently, the defense affirmed that “by reading the experts’ reports and their convincing conclusions, it is incontrovertibly and categorically demonstrated that [these women] have a normal psychic structure, with a good perception of self-esteem and self-concept, with a level of integration and social insertion that far exceeds their participation in BAYS, and that, fundamentally, they have not been victims of any sexual recruitment or exploitation.” Without victims of exploitation and without the proof of an intention to exploit them, the defense argued that there was no crime of human trafficking, and therefore the
whole theory of the prosecution fell to the ground.

The results of the examinations actually confirmed what the nine women had said in their statements in the Gesell Chamber (a room equipped for interviews of victims and criminals, conducted by a psychologist), when they reported details of their lives, such as the good relationships with numerous relatives and friends
outside BAYS, and that – until before being exposed by the media and have their careers ruined by the false information reported about them – they had independent jobs and activities.
All of them strongly denied any coercion or compulsion to perform any sexual or other acts. As they affirmed on numerous occasions, they were always in all their decisions free and autonomous women. In addition to the Gesell Chamber and during the expert examinations, they affirmed this very circumstance in interviews with the media and with the renowned scholars Massimo Introvigne, Susan Palmer, and Holly Folk.
It must be considered that the nine women had to appoint a legal representative to be able to provide correct information, since, despite their numerous requests, they were never called to testify by the judge or the
prosecutors.
Thus, each one of them was able to enter into the case file their own statements, in which they recounted and documented personal details. It was also possible to visualize through photographs what their personal lives and their family and friends’ affections had been like during the last decades. They also filed numerous personal and collective writings, in which they rejected the accusations and the fact that they had been classified as victims, citing jurisprudence on women’s human rights, and denouncing the gender bias in the theories of the prosecutors. Not only did they offer these contributions to shed light on this concerning case, but they also filed a formal complaint against the PROTEX prosecutors.