Abundio Alejandro Contreras González, married, one child, a militant of the MIR, was detained on July 14, 1974, at approximately 06:45 hours, by 5 DINA agents armed with submachine guns who violently broke into his home located in La Cisterna.

One of the individuals claimed to be named "Julio" and to be his friend, addressing him by his nickname, "Jano." After the home was raided, they dragged him out, beating him with fists and feet, an act witnessed by his father and his spouse.

That same day, around 15:00 hours, the home of his sister, Julia Amelia Contreras González, located in the "Fe y Esperanza" camp, was raided by the same agents, who stated they were looking for a bag he had allegedly left for safekeeping.

Finding nothing, they returned the following day, but this time they brought Contreras González with them as a detainee. On this occasion, they told his sister not to comment on the events that had occurred and that she would have news later.

After his detention, Abundio Contreras González was taken to the DINA detention center at Londres 38 and later, in the last week of July, to 4 Alamos, from where he was forcibly disappeared. In these facilities, he was seen by witnesses who survived their own apprehension.

Mr. Cristián Esteban Van Yurick Altamirano, a former DINA detainee, stated in his testimony that he was arrested on July 12, 1974, and taken to that detention center. There, he was interrogated and tortured with the application of electricity to various parts of his body.

He also noted the presence of other detainees, among them Abundio Contreras González, who was a member of the MIR structure known as GPM1, and whose capture was perhaps related to Artemio Gutiérrez or Francisco Fuenzalida.

These last two individuals are also among the forcibly disappeared and, like the victim, were members of the MIR's GPM1. Ms. Scarlett Mathieu Loguercio, a former detainee at Londres 38, stated in her testimony that she was detained on July 15, 1974, and taken to the aforementioned facility.

Abundio Contreras González was being held there as a prisoner, and on one occasion, he lent her personal hygiene items. She was transferred along with him to 4 Alamos around July 25; they were in the same van, where he told her: "I am Pablo, my name is Abundio Alejandro Contreras González"—a name she never forgot.

His family carried out various efforts to determine his whereabouts, all of which were unsuccessful, and they still do not know the fate he met at the hands of the DINA. His spouse, Ms. Victoria Krüger Guajardo, was also detained at the end of July 1974 and was later released. Shortly thereafter, she had to leave the country with her daughter due to the certain fear of being detained again.

JUDICIAL AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

On July 19, 1974, his family filed a writ of amparo (habeas corpus) on his behalf before the Santiago Court of Appeals, case file 780-74, in which they detailed the circumstances surrounding his detention.

During the processing of the writ, on August 12, the Ministry of the Interior reported that he was not being held by order of any administrative authority and that the Ministry was unaware of his current whereabouts.

However, the petitioners pointed out to the Court that the Ministry of the Interior's information contradicted records collected by the SENDET, where they had been informed of the existence of an Exempt Decree ordering the release of the detainee.

On October 11, 1974, in a new report from that Secretariat of State, the Court was informed that the affected party was at liberty in compliance with Exempt Decree No. 274 issued by that office. Based on this latest information, the Court sent a new official letter to the Ministry requesting a copy of Decree 274, dated August 7, and information regarding where the order had been carried out.

On November 12, the Minister of the Interior, General Raúl Benavides Escobar, indicated to the Court that the victim was at liberty and that there was no other information regarding him, omitting the copy of the requested decree.

On November 15, 1974, the Court rejected the writ of amparo, ordering that the case files be sent to the 8th Criminal Court to establish the whereabouts of Abundio Contreras González.

On November 22, 1974, the 8th Criminal Court of Santiago complied with the Court's order, initiating case file No. 22.888-4. In the investigation order carried out by the Investigative Police, the complainant, Mr.

Héctor Miguel Contreras González, the victim's brother, was interviewed. He ratified the facts already presented, adding that the captors were traveling in a modern, white, closed "Apache" pickup truck, and that days after the detention, his spouse, Victoria Krüger Guajardo, had been detained and subsequently released.

On April 18, 1975, Ms. Julia Amelia Contreras González appeared before the Court and also ratified the facts that culminated in her brother's disappearance, adding that his spouse was in Ireland.

On October 16, 1975, Judge Cecilia Venegas Vásquez temporarily dismissed the case on the grounds that the reported crime had not been proven. It should be noted that there is no record in the proceedings that the Court requested from the Ministry of the Interior a copy of the respective exempt decrees—that is, the decree ordering his apprehension and the decree by which the Ministry of the Interior claimed he was released—nor was that Secretariat of State asked to specify the place where he was held.

Furthermore, the dismissal resolution was not submitted for review to the Superior Court.

Source: Vicariate of Solidarity

The Eleventh Civil Court of Santiago ordered the State to pay compensation of $15,000,000 (fifteen million pesos) to the daughter of Abundio Alejandro Contreras González, who was illegally detained by DINA agents on June 14, 1974, in the commune of La Cisterna.

In the ruling (case file 1.970-2018), Judge Ricardo Núñez Videla accepted the action filed by Contreras González's daughter, after establishing the State's obligation to provide reparations to victims of human rights violations.

"In summary, the obligation of reparation is an obligation that rests upon the State that has violated the human rights of its citizens, an obligation that is part of the legal statute of Chile, as indicated in the preceding foundation.

This obligation of reparation must be conceptualized, in relevant terms, as a civil action that allows victims to obtain material compensation for the damages suffered," the ruling states.

The resolution adds: "In any legal regime, the breach of a commitment, a contract, or a treaty generates an obligation for the infringing party, consisting, in general, of indemnifying all damage caused. Thus, responsibility can be considered a general principle of international law."

"Moreover," it continues, "this has been recognized by both the Permanent Court of International Justice and its successor, the International Court of Justice, for which it suffices to cite the ruling of the former in 1927, in the Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow, which states: 'it is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.' Therefore, for the obligation to repair to arise in matters of humanitarian law, the existence of an infringement of its norms is necessary, a matter that concurs in the present case."

Regarding the application of the statute of limitations, contemplated in the internal regime, the ruling maintains: "On this point, it must be noted that in matters of human rights, provisions for amnesty, statutes of limitations, and exclusionary causes of responsibility that the State itself attempts to impose are inadmissible, as this undermines the essence of International Human Rights Law."

"This has been pointed out by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos case of Peru, in the judgment of March 14, 2001, a judgment that was adopted by the Honorable Santiago Court of Appeals in the aforementioned ruling (Miguel Ángel Sandoval Rodríguez)," it affirms on the matter.

"In conclusion, while it is true that Article 2497 of the Civil Code is fully in force, said norm is not applicable to the present case, not because it is unconstitutional, but because its application is excluded by virtue of the international treaties signed by Chile, both those that preceded the events (1949 Geneva Convention on humanitarian law – American Convention on Human Rights) and those that were signed subsequently (International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance)," it sentences.

"Furthermore, the argument that there are no imprescriptible obligations in national law is not effective, as this is refuted by the provisions of the Law regulating the State-Guaranteed Credit, where in the second paragraph of Article 13 it is stated: 'In any case, the debtor's unpaid installments, whether due to unemployment or any other cause, shall not prescribe, and the State must proceed to collect them until the total extinction of the debt, using for this purpose the mechanisms established in Title V.' Consequently, the allegations of prescription formulated by the State of Chile must be rejected," the ruling affirms.

"In accordance with the reasoning provided, it is then necessary to set the quantum of the compensation for the daughter of Abundio Alejandro Contreras González, that is, Tamara Victoria Contreras Kruger, in the sum of $15,000,000, keeping in mind that at the hands of the perpetrators, her father was kidnapped and subsequently disappeared, the latter circumstance being one regarding which the plaintiff maintains uncertainty, remaining unaware, to this day, of his fate and whereabouts," it concludes.

Source: adprensa.cl 18/01/2019 Date: 01-18-2019

This week, the Supreme Court ratified the sentences appealed in two cases of human rights violations investigated, in the first instance, by visiting ministers Leopoldo Llanos Sagristá and Alejandro Madrid Crohare.

Londres 38 In the first ruling (case file 11198-2015), the Second Chamber of the highest court—composed of ministers Milton Juica, Carlos Künsemüller, Haroldo Brito, Juan Eduardo Fuentes, and Jorge Dahm—rejected the cassation appeal filed against the sentence issued on October 24, 2014, which convicted two agents of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) as authors of the repeated crimes of qualified kidnapping of Artemio Gutiérrez Ávila, Javier Fuentealba Fuentealba, and Abundio Contreras González, illicit acts perpetrated starting on July 13 (the first two) and July 14, 1974 (the latter), in the Metropolitan Region.

The highest court's sentence ratified the convictions issued by Minister Llanos: 20 years of imprisonment for former army officer Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, and 15 years and one day of imprisonment for agent Basclay Humberto Zapata Reyes.

During the investigation stage, Minister Leopoldo Llanos managed to establish the following facts:

a) That "Londres N°38" was a secret detention and torture center of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA). It was located in downtown Santiago and operated from late 1973 until approximately the last days of August 1974.

It held numerous detainees, who were interrogated and tortured with different types of flagellation. They were also taken from the site to cooperate in other detentions. b) That Artemio Segundo Gutiérrez Ávila, 23 years old, jeweler, single, militant of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR), was detained jointly with Francisco Javier Eduardo Fuentealba Fuentealba, 26 years old, jeweler, militant of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR), by DINA agents on July 13, 1974, while they were at the "Platinol" jewelry store located at Calle Santo Domingo N° 573, Apartment 33, commune of Santiago, to be taken to the clandestine detention center known as "Londres 38," where they were seen by witnesses, with all credible traces regarding them being lost to date, without them having made contact with their relatives, nor having carried out actions before State bodies; without registering entries or exits from the country, and without their death being recorded; c) That Abundio Alejandro Contreras González, 28 years of age, married, father of two children, employee of the Agrarian Reform Corporation (CORA) and militant of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR), was detained on July 14, 1974, at his home in the commune of La Cisterna by members of the National Intelligence Directorate. He was seen at "Londres 38" and at "Cuatro Álamos" by various witnesses, and from there all traces of him are lost to date, without him having made contact with his relatives, nor having carried out actions before State bodies, without registering entries or exits from the country, and without his death being recorded (...) the facts described above constitute separate crimes of qualified kidnapping, contemplated in Article 141, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Penal Code; and are qualified by the time the action was prolonged, that is, more than 90 days, and by the consequences of the same, resulting in serious damage to the person or interests of the victims. Such a situation occurs in the case files, as the whereabouts of Artemio Segundo Gutiérrez Ávila, Francisco Fuentealba Fuentealba, and Abundio Contreras González remain unknown, it being established in the case that the aforementioned victims were held against their will starting on July 13, 1974 (regarding the first two) and July 14 of the same year (regarding the latter), depriving them of their freedom of movement, a state that continues to this day, as the whereabouts of the kidnapped persons remain unknown. EXTRACT

Source: resumen.cl 06/25/2016

Abundio, the carpenter of the G1. In memory of Abundio Contreras, "Pablo"

By Lucía Sepúlveda. Abundio Alejandro Contreras González was 28 years old, had a daughter, a wife, a trade—carpenter—and a party, the MIR, when he was detained on July 14, 1974. Five DINA agents arrived at his home in La Cisterna and took him away, beating him in the presence of his father and his wife, Victoria Kruger.

She was detained at the end of that month, and after being released, she went into exile out of fear. The home of Abundio's sister, in the "Fe y Esperanza" camp, was raided by the same agents on two occasions.

The second time, they brought Abundio with them, without finding a supposed bag they were looking for. Abundio was taken to Londres 38 and in the last week of July was transferred to 4 Alamos, from where he was forcibly disappeared.

A name not to be forgotten: "I am Pablo, my name is Abundio Alejandro Contreras," the carpenter told Scarlett Mathieu when they were both being taken in a van to 4 Alamos on July 25. She never forgot that name, and she also remembers that he once lent her hygiene items at Londres 38.

Furthermore, Cristián Van Yurick Altamirano, who also survived his time at that torture center, declared that he saw Pablo and knew he was a member of the MIR structure called Political-Military Group 1 (GPM1), and estimated that his capture could be related to Artemio Gutiérrez or Francisco Fuenzalida, also disappeared, who were militants with him.

The dictatorship also wanted the name to be remembered, and included him in the list of the 119 Chileans who were said to have died at the hands of their comrades abroad, in a publicity stunt orchestrated by the intelligence services of the Southern Cone, within the framework of Operation Condor.

Source: archivochile.com (undated)

We remember the many comrades who fell on July 13 and 14 due to the repression of Pinochet and his civilian accomplices

Abundio Alejandro Contreras González, forcibly disappeared on 07-14-1974, from the Metropolitan Region, militant of the MIR, 28 years of age.

(On July 14, 1974, DINA agents detained MIR militant Abundio Alejandro CONTRERAS GONZALEZ at his home in the commune of La Cisterna. In the following days, two other MIR militants linked to him were detained: Germán Rodolfo MORENO FUENZALIDA and Marcos Esteban QUIÑONES LEMBACH.

Germán Moreno was detained on July 15, 1974, on Calle Independencia. Two days later, he was taken to his home by his captors, where they also detained Marcos Quiñones, who had gone to that location. There are witnesses to the presence of the detainees at Londres Nº38, from where they were forcibly disappeared.

In the case of Germán Rodolfo Moreno, the Ministry of the Interior acknowledged his detention by means of a decree that referred to his presence at the Cuatro Alamos facility. However, in its response to the Courts, the Ministry indicated that by virtue of another decree, the detainee had been released, without providing further information or evidence that this had actually occurred.

The Commission is convinced that these three people were forcibly disappeared by the action of State agents, who thus violated their human rights.)

Source: memoriayvida.cl 07/14/2021 (extract) Date: 07-14-2021