The official version stated that Enrique López Olmedo was to be arrested “on suspicion of clandestine activities but resisted.” A judicial investigation confirmed that he was tortured for 3 hours and then murdered in cold blood.

The minister of the Valparaíso Court of Appeals, Jaime Arancibia Pinto, initiated proceedings against former Navy official Alberto Badilla Grillo and former Carabineros official Pedro Alcayaga Zúñiga as authors of the crimes of torture and homicide of Spanish citizen Enrique López Olmedo, offenses perpetrated in November 1977, in Valparaíso, during the height of Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship.

According to the background information recorded in the case, it was established that on November 11, 1977, López Olmedo was "detained by agents of the "CIRE" of the Chilean Navy, in an operation carried out at the home of a relative of the victim, located in the Playa Ancha sector."

The minister established that "in said place, Enrique López Olmedo was tied to a chair and, blindfolded, was interrogated and tortured by his captors for approximately three hours. After that, he was taken out of the house (...) already showing evident signs of mistreatment, and was subsequently riddled with bullets by the agents who participated in the operation, being then transported to the Naval Hospital of Valparaíso, arriving deceased at said hospital center due to acute anemia."

The judicial investigation contrasts with the official version, which stated that on that day, at 10:00 PM, under circumstances where Navy security personnel were attempting to arrest him at the intersection of Pacífico and Coronel Silva Vergara streets in Valparaíso for being a suspect in clandestine activities, he "resisted, upon which the officials were forced to use their firearms, resulting in him being wounded and dying during transport to a medical center."

López Olmedo was an alternate member of the Political Commission of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). He was 35 years old at the time of his death, was married to Lucía Bennett Urrutia, and had two children. He had studied Sociology at the Catholic University.

Regarding the cases of the alleged authors, Alberto Badilla Grillo and Pedro Alcayaga Zúñiga, the resolution by Minister Arancibia stated that "there are well-founded presumptions that they bear responsibility as authors of the crimes of torture and qualified homicide against the person of Enrique López Olmedo," the judicial resolution established.

Source: La Nación, June 6, 2014

Supreme Court confirms conviction of retired Navy members for torture and homicide of Spanish citizen

In a unanimous ruling, the Second Chamber of the highest court confirmed the sentence that condemned Alberto Roque del Sagrado Corazón Badilla Grillo and Pedro Alcayaga Zúñiga to 12 years in prison as authors of qualified homicide, and to 541 days of imprisonment as authors of the application of torture.

Meanwhile, Gastón Silva Cañas was sentenced to 5 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release, as an accessory to the qualified homicide.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeals filed against the sentence that condemned three retired Navy personnel for their responsibility in the crimes of the application of torture and qualified homicide of Spanish citizen Enrique López Olmedo, offenses perpetrated in November 1977 in the city of Valparaíso.

In a unanimous ruling (case file 43.575-2020), the Second Chamber of the highest court—composed of ministers Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Leopoldo Llanos, María Teresa Letelier, Jorge Zepeda, and Eliana Quezada—confirmed the sentence that condemned the appellants Alberto Roque del Sagrado Corazón Badilla Grillo and Pedro Alcayaga Zúñiga to 12 years in prison as authors of qualified homicide, and to 541 days of imprisonment as authors of the application of torture.

Meanwhile, Gastón Silva Cañas was sentenced to 5 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release, as an accessory to the qualified homicide.

In the resolution, the Supreme Court rejected both the plea of res judicata and the application of the 1978 Amnesty Decree Law and the statute of limitations for criminal action, as argued by the defense.

“That, in that line of reasoning, it should be noted that both national law and international law contemplate exceptions to the institution of res judicata that emanates from final judgments,” the ruling states.

The resolution adds: “Indeed, the former exempts from such effect those final judgments that produce only formal res judicata, or those that produce so-called provisional substantial res judicata; likewise, it is provided that final judgments obtained fraudulently may be set aside through an action for review; and, finally, there is consensus regarding depriving of the effect of res judicata those final judgments that have been issued in a process in which there was no summons of the defendant and in which the defendant did not—for that reason—appear in court, preventing the formation of the legal-procedural relationship, producing what is known in doctrine as ‘apparent res judicata’.”

“That, for its part,” it continues, “in International Human Rights Law, the doctrine has been established—reflected in rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, IACHR)—that fraudulent res judicata does not produce the effect inherent to the institution; and it has that character when, in the substantiation of the trial that culminated in the final definitive judgment, the requirements of due process were not met.”

“In this regard, it has been said: ‘In accordance with the Convention and with what the Inter-American Court has expressed on repeated occasions, the States parties are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due legal process (Article 8.1), all within the general responsibility, incumbent upon the States themselves, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to every person within their jurisdiction (Article 1.1) (IACHR, 1988, para. 91; 2008a, para. 77; 2008b, para. 34)’,” it cites.

“Following the previous pronouncement, Inter-American jurisprudence since the year 2000 has determined, in a series of rulings, the scope regarding what should be understood as fraudulent res judicata.

E.g., ‘in the case of Carpio Nicolle et al. vs. Guatemala, the Inter-American Court argued that international regulations examine what is known as this type of fraud—Article 20 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998); Article 20 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda (1994) and Article 9 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993)—and expressed that this defective activity results from a trial in which the rules of due process have not been respected, or when the judges did not act with independence and impartiality (IACHR, 2004, para. 131)’,” it notes.

For the highest court: “(…) it follows from the above that even when it has been repeatedly stated by the IACHR that in matters of violation of fundamental rights—as is the case in the present matter—victims must be repaired by the States in an integral manner, for which the actions tending to said reparation must be made available to them so that they may exercise them in a due process in which all constitutional procedural guarantees are respected, it is no less true that said parameters and requirements were not met in the first trial that has been invoked here as the basis for the exception of res judicata.”

“Indeed,” it elaborates, “just as the eleventh ground of the first-instance ruling concluded, the investigation carried out in the case followed before the Naval Justice in 1977 was poorly focused from the beginning and what was attempted was to give a veneer of legality to a totally irregular situation that constituted a serious crime.

For the dismissal issued to have legitimate effects, it must be supported by an institutional legal situation that makes it appropriate, both from an adjectival and substantive point of view. In the case at hand, it was the apprehension of the victim for purely political reasons, since he was not charged with participation in any concrete act, according to the legislation in force at that time, that would allow his apprehension and subsequent murder.

On the other hand, the same bodies that were in charge of the investigation of those events that supposedly endangered the internal security of the country were in charge, through an improper and irregular splitting, of administering justice through bodies that belonged to the same armed institution.”

“It was evident then, that the dismissal issued under those conditions, that is, by persons belonging, like the accused, to the same branch, could have any veneer of impartiality and objectivity, such that the denounced vice lacks foundation and cannot prosper,” it highlights.

Amnesty Likewise, the Criminal Chamber maintains: “That, regarding the non-application of the 1978 Amnesty Decree Law and the statute of limitations for criminal action, it is convenient to keep in mind that, according to the reiterated doctrine of this Supreme Court, our country, upon signing and ratifying the 1949 Geneva Conventions, assumed the commitment to adopt all necessary legislative measures in order to establish the appropriate criminal sanctions to be applied to persons who commit, or order to be committed, any of the grave breaches defined in that international instrument; the States Parties are also obligated to search for such persons, having to make them appear before their own courts and to take the necessary measures to cease acts contrary to the provisions of the Agreement. The State of Chile imposed upon itself the duty not to resort to measures tending to protect the grievances committed against specific persons or to achieve the impunity of their authors, renouncing the power to exonerate itself or another State from responsibilities incurred by them, especially taking into account that international agreements must be fulfilled in good faith.”

“That, in the exercise of its sovereignty, our Nation may amnesty crimes that are committed and are subject to its authority. However, if it has limited its own power regarding certain illicit acts in an international commitment, it cannot exceed said self-imposed limit and contradict in this way the national and universal order, much less circumvent the aforementioned Conventions, which, through their signing and ratification, acquired fully binding effects.

The failure to comply with the assumed obligations is, therefore, excluded without prior denunciation of those instruments, it being inadmissible that, having contracted such duties of criminal prosecution and judgment, one then tries to evade compliance by invoking ordinary national legislation,” the resolution affirms.

“In this perspective,” the Second Chamber reasons, “the amnesty granted by Decree Law 2.191 can be clearly understood as an act of self-exoneration of criminal responsibility for grave human rights violations—among them, homicide and torture in all its forms—since it was issued after the agreed commitment and after the perpetration of the facts, thus guaranteeing the impunity of those responsible, which gravely violates Article 148 of the IV Geneva Convention; by virtue of this, it is not possible to accept that self-exoneration in the case of such reprehensible breaches of the protection of the fundamental rights of the person, committed during the validity of the cited regulations.”

“That, on the other hand, given their nature, the investigated facts constitute a crime against humanity, because they occurred in a context of grave, massive, and systematic human rights violations, verified by State agents, constituting the victim of this case and many others as an instrument within a policy on a general scale of exclusion, harassment, persecution, or extermination of a group of numerous compatriots and foreign citizens who, in the time immediately following September 11, 1973, were labeled as belonging ideologically to the deposed political regime or who, for any circumstance, were considered suspicious of opposing or hindering the realization of the social and political construction devised by those holding power, guaranteeing impunity to the executors of said program through non-interference in their methods, both through the concealment of reality before the request of ordinary courts of justice for relevant reports, and through the use of state power to persuade local and foreign public opinion that the complaints formulated to that effect were false and responded to a campaign tending to discredit the authoritarian military regime. Thus, persons who use state means and instruments to perpetrate such grave crimes against the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual wrap themselves in a mantle of impunity woven with the State’s own resources,” the resolution states.

“The principles according to which the impossibility of amnestying them, of establishing circumstances excluding responsibility, or of declaring their statute of limitations is enshrined—institutions that intend to prevent the investigation and sanction of those responsible—determine that the conventions, pacts, and treaties in which human rights and guarantees are recognized at the level of national courts enjoy primacy.

From this postulate, it follows that, according to a progressive and teleological interpretation of the Fundamental Charter, they prevail over the internal legal order, since it is understood that they prefer, perfect, and complement it, being, therefore, a regulation possible to invoke by all individuals, given the moral and legal commitment of the State before the international community to respect, promote, and guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual.

It is for this reason that in this type of transgression it is not possible to invoke the Amnesty Decree Law and the statute of limitations for criminal action, because international human rights law prohibits it, which is why the cause under study cannot prosper,” the ruling concludes.

"Ratonera" (Trap) In the first-instance ruling, the visiting minister of the Valparaíso Court of Appeals, Jaime Arancibia Pinto, established the following facts: “That on November 11, 1977, the victim, Enrique López Olmedo, of Spanish nationality, was detained by agents of the CIRE of the Chilean Navy, in an operation (ratonera) carried out at the home of a relative of his, located in the Playa Ancha sector of Valparaíso.

In said place, after his detention, Enrique López Olmedo was tied to a chair and, blindfolded, was interrogated and tortured by his captors for approximately three hours. After that, he was taken out of the house and carried by the CIRE agents in an unknown direction, already with evident signs of mistreatment, and subsequently, a few blocks from the house, he was riddled with bullets by the agents who had participated in that operation, the victim being then transported to the Naval War Academy where the CIRE operated, being finally taken to the Naval Hospital of Valparaíso, arriving deceased at that hospital center, it being determined that the cause of his death was acute anemia.”

Source: adn.cl, June 27, 2023

Updated list of human rights violators who are fugitives from justice made official

This is a list prepared by the Caucoto Abogados Law Firm, which includes 14 criminals, among whom are individuals linked to the homicide of Víctor Jara, the execution of 38 peasants in the main Paine Case, and the assassination of Spanish diplomat Carmelo Soria.

This Friday, the Caucoto Abogados Law Firm made official the updated list of former uniformed personnel who are fugitives from justice, convicted of various crimes against humanity.

It involves 14 people, some of them involved in the crime of Víctor Jara and Littré Quiroga, in the execution of 38 peasants in the main Paine Case, and the assassination of Spanish diplomat Carmelo Soria, among other investigations, details a statement from the office specialized in human rights.

Regarding the list, it is made up of former military personnel, Carabineros, former Navy officials, and civilians who were members of the dictatorship's repressive apparatuses, such as the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), the National Intelligence Center (CNI), and naval intelligence, who are accused as authors and co-authors of qualified kidnapping, qualified homicide, illicit association, and the application of torture, among other illicit acts.

Specifically, it is composed of

1. Jorge Octavio Vargas Bories (retired Army officer, CNI), sentenced as a co-author of the assassination of Federico Álvarez Santibáñez to 10 years and one day. 2. Rubén Aroldo Morales López (retired Carabineros officer), sentenced to 10 years and one day of major imprisonment as an author of the qualified homicide of Jorge Vásquez Matamala. 3.

Luis Enrique Barrueto Bartning, a businessman sentenced to 10 years and one day as a co-author of seven qualified kidnappings (forcibly disappeared) perpetrated in the commune of Santa Bárbara.

To them are added four convicted in the Conferencia II episode:

4. Federico Humberto Chaigneau Sepúlveda (retired Army officer, DINA) 5. José Miguel Meza Serrano (retired Navy official, DINA) 6. Eduardo Alejandro Oyarce Riquelme (retired Army non-commissioned officer, DINA)

All of them are sentenced as co-authors of the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Fernando Navarro Allendes and Héctor Véliz Ramírez, to a penalty of 12 years in prison each, to which are added the crimes of simple kidnapping of Juan Fernando Ortiz Letelier, Horacio Cepeda Marinkovic, and Lincoyán Berríos, for which they were sentenced to three years in prison, respectively.

7. Víctor Álvarez Droguett (retired Army official, DINA), sentenced as a co-author of the crimes of qualified homicide of Juan Fernando Ortiz Letelier, Horacio Cepeda Marinkovic, and Lincoyán Yalú Berríos Cataldo, to a penalty of 15 years and one day of major imprisonment in its maximum degree.

In addition, he is sentenced as a co-author of the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Fernando Alfredo Navarro Allendes and Héctor Véliz Ramírez, to a penalty of 12 years of major imprisonment in its medium degree.

Additionally, he was sentenced as an author of the crimes of simple kidnapping of Juan Fernando Ortiz Letelier, Horacio Cepeda Marinkovic, and Lincoyán Yalú Berríos Cataldo, to a penalty of three years of minor imprisonment in its medium degree. Finally, Álvarez Droguett faces a 10-year prison sentence for the qualified kidnapping of Marta Ugarte Román.

8. Alberto Roque del Sagrado Corazón Badilla Grillo, retired Navy officer, who was sentenced as an author of the qualified homicide and the application of torture against Enrique López Olmedo, to penalties of 12 years and 541 days respectively.

9. Juan Dionisio Opazo Vera (former conscript) sentenced as a co-author of 38 qualified homicides to a penalty of 10 years and one day, in the Paine Case, Main Episode.

10. Nelson Edgardo Hasse Mazzei (retired Army officer) 11. Juan Renán Jara Quintana (retired Army officer), who together with Hasse Mazzei is convicted as a co-author of the qualified kidnappings and qualified homicides of Víctor Jara Martínez and Littré Quiroga Carvajal.

For these crimes, a penalty of 10 years and one day was established for the kidnappings, in addition to 15 years in prison for the crimes.

12. Guillermo Salinas Torres (retired Army officer) 13. Pablo Belmar Labbé (retired Army officer) 14. René Patricio Quilhot Palma (retired Army officer)

In the case of these three fugitives from justice, they were convicted as co-authors of the crimes of qualified homicide of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, and as authors of an illicit association. For the first charge, a penalty of 15 years and one day was imposed on Salinas Torres, and 10 years and one day on the other two, while for the crime of illicit association, all were sentenced to a penalty of 541 days in prison.

«Sentences must be fulfilled» Regarding this list, lawyer Francisco Bustos asserts that it is a worrying situation that should be a priority for the authorities. “States have the duty to investigate, judge, and sanction crimes against humanity,” he maintains. “This duty is not exhausted with the mere issuance of a conviction; these sentences must be fulfilled, and in that sense, that there are fugitives for any crime, and especially 14 fugitives for crimes against humanity, represents a grave failure of state duties,” he adds.

Finally, he stressed that “the judiciary and the plaintiffs in processes for crimes against humanity must take extreme measures, including the imposition of precautionary measures, in order to avoid this form of impunity.”

Source: eldesconcierto.cl, November 24, 2023