Four decades after the events, the Concepción Court of Appeals issued the sentence against civilians and former Carabineros, led at the time by Lieutenant Planté Aravena, for their participation in the events following September 11, 1973.

After more than 40 years of investigation into the disappearance of 28 people in Santa Bárbara and Quilaco following September 11, 1973, the Concepción Supreme Court issued the sentence against those involved in the events.

In a unanimous ruling, issued by the Third Chamber of the appellate court—composed of ministers Carola Rivas Vargas, Viviana Iza Miranda, and lawyer (i) Jean Pierre Latsague Lightwood—the sentences were confirmed, as well as the total compensation of $1.215 billion that the state and those convicted must pay to the victims' families.

In the proceeding, the court sentenced a number of individuals for this disappearance, including Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez to a 14-year prison term as the author of 19 crimes of qualified kidnapping.

Meanwhile, Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán and José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme will serve sentences of 11 years and 10 years and one day in prison for being the authors of 10 and 7 qualified kidnappings, respectively.

Carlos Santiago Sepúlveda Rivera was sentenced by the court to 10 years and one day in prison as the author of four crimes of qualified kidnapping, and Pedro Segundo Ruiz Pardo must serve 5 years and one day in prison as the author of one crime of qualified kidnapping.

ACCOMPLICES TO THIS CRIME

Furthermore, Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela, Luis Enrique Ricardo Antonio Barrueto Bartning, and Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning were convicted in the case as accomplices, receiving sentences of six years in prison as accomplices to seven crimes of qualified kidnapping.

For his part, Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Barrera received a sentence of five years and one day of effective prison time as an accomplice to two crimes of qualified kidnapping. In the case of Jorge Denis Domínguez Larenas, Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames, and José Roberto Valdivia Dames, they were sentenced to 4 years in prison as accomplices to one crime of qualified kidnapping.

They were granted the benefit of supervised release. The same benefit was granted to Eugenio Villa Urrutia, José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz, and Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán, who were sentenced to 4 years in prison as accomplices to seven and five qualified kidnappings, respectively.

The case decreed the dismissal of charges against Carabineros officers José Eleodoro Burgos Sandoval and José Jaime Godoy Godoy, and civilians Sergio Alejandro Pino Cabezas and Sergio Humberto Salazar San Martín, as their participation in the events could not be proven.

Regarding this ruling, Minister Carola Rivas commented that "the sentence, in terms of condemning the Carabineros officers who, in the period following September 11, 1973, kidnapped and forcibly disappeared several people from the aforementioned sectors of the region to effective prison terms of 14, 11, and 5 years and one day, also modifies the classification of the participation of the civilians who collaborated with the Carabineros in the same sentence."

Source: lanalhuenoticias.cl, June 16, 2019

Supreme Court convicts former Carabineros and civilians for qualified kidnappings in Santa Bárbara and Quilaco in 1973

The Second Chamber overturned the appealed sentence ex officio regarding the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement sentence, convicted them as authors for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings.

The Supreme Court accepted the filed appeals in substance and issued a final judgment in the investigation into the qualified kidnappings of José Domingo Godoy Acuña, Julio Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Solís, José Nazario Godoy Acuña, Manuel Salamanca Mella, José Mariano Godoy Acuña, Miguel Cuevas Pincheira, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme, Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, José Guillermo Purrán Treca, Elba Burgos Sáez, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama, Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama, Sergio D´Apollonio Petermann, and Aliro Oporto Durán; and of Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, José Felidor Pinto Pinto, Luis Alberto Cid Cid, Luis Alberto Bastías Sandoval, Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, Gabriel José Viveros Flores, Segundo Marcial Soto Quijón, and José Roberto Molina Quezada. These crimes were perpetrated in the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, respectively, between September and December 1973. In a split decision (case roll 24.143-2019), the Second Chamber of the highest court—composed of ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Dahm, Leopoldo Llanos, and Minister María Teresa Letelier—overturned ex officio the appealed sentence, issued by the Concepción Court of Appeals, in the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement sentence, convicted them as authors for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings. In the final judgment, the following were convicted as authors of the crimes: Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez to a 14-year prison term; Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán and José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme must serve 11 years in prison; Carlos Santiago Sepúlveda Rivera and Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Barrera, 10 years and one day; Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela, Luis Enrique Ricardo Antonio Barrueto Bartning, and Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning to 10 years and one day of imprisonment; meanwhile, Jorge Denis Domínguez Larenas, Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames, and José Roberto Valdivia Dames must serve 5 years and one day in prison. Finally, the convicted individuals Eugenio Villa Urrutia, Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán, and José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz were sentenced to 4 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release for the same period. "Regarding the alleged defect, it should be kept in mind that to analyze the degree of participation that—among others—corresponded to the accused Luis Barrueto Bartning, Manuel Barrueto Bartning, and Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Manuel Salamanca, José Domingo Godoy Acuña, José Nazario Godoy Acuña, and José Mariano Godoy Acuña; and to the defendant Jorge Domínguez Larenas in the crime of qualified kidnapping of Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann, the second-instance sentence, in its 57th finding, referred to the functional theory of the act and analyzed the requirements of co-authorship, after which it concluded in reasoning 59° that the conduct of all the civilians who intervened in the events could only be considered as complicity," the ruling states. The resolution adds: "To arrive at such a conclusion, the lower court judges estimated that although the defendants collaborated with the detention of each of the victims, 'the control of the kidnapping act always remained with the police officers, since the collaborative action of these subjects lasted only until the detainees were in the hands of the public official, police authority, or at the police station or outpost to which the detainees were taken, so that what was acted and decided by said Carabineros officers, in terms of causing their disappearance to this day of each of the detained victims, is not an action over which these accused could have had control. This factual circumstance is even recognized in the thirty-sixth consideration of the first-instance sentence when, analyzing the participation of Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez, it mentions that 'he organized a group of civilians to provide collaboration to the officers of his unit and that he had the most complete and absolute authority over them and the civilians under his command...'" For the Criminal Chamber, in this instance: "However, from a careful reading of the sixty-sixth, sixty-seventh, sixty-eighth, sixty-ninth, seventy-first, seventy-second, fifty-fourth, fifty-fifth, fifty-sixth, forty-sixth, and forty-seventh findings of the first-instance sentence, it is inferred that the defendants Luis Barrueto Bartning, Manuel Barrueto Bartning, Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela, and Jorge Domínguez Larenas carried out a series of actions that constitute the immediate and direct execution of the criminal type at hand." "Indeed," it elaborates, "as stated in the sixty-sixth finding, the defendant Luis Barrueto Bartning stated that after September 11, 1973, he was called by the Chief of the Military Garrison of Los Ángeles to collaborate with the Army in transport and patrol tasks, as a report had been received at the garrison that there were extremist elements in the sector, so he placed himself at the disposal of the Chief of the Santa Bárbara police station to help identify those people. He added that upon presenting himself, they left for the El Huachi estate in two vehicles, one of which was a pickup truck he owned, which he was driving. He added that together with his brother Manuel, they collaborated in the identification of several people, who were detained by Carabineros, loaded into the vehicles, and transported. He stated that on the way, they stopped other people—whom he lists—and that subsequently, upon realizing one was missing, they went with his brother and Carabineros to look for him in his pickup truck. These acknowledgments of responsibility are also corroborated—among others—by the testimonies of Julio Erices Cid on page 412, Jacinta Godoy Acuña on page 388 vta, and Juan Salamanca Godoy on page 414." "For his part, Manuel Barrueto Bartning, as appears from reasoning seventieth, acknowledged having been part of a voluntary collaboration force of the Carabineros de Chile and that he was authorized to carry weapons," it highlights. "He added that he took officers to his estate called 'El Huachi,' although he attributes it to a different purpose, acknowledging that between 8 to 9 people were detained at the location and that on the way back, after stopping a bus, others were apprehended. Likewise, he accepted that in the particular case of Salamanca Mella, as he resisted the detention, he struggled with him and hit him on the head with a weapon. All these background facts are also complemented by the assertions of Julio Erices Cid on page 412, who pointed out that Manuel Barrueto was driving the pickup truck where several detainees were lying face down in the cargo area, also corroborated by the statements of witnesses Sylvia Cerda Rodríguez, Jacinta Godoy Acuña, and Juan Salamanca Godoy," the ruling notes. Likewise, the highest court reproduces "(...) the fifty-fourth finding, which refers to the fact that the accused Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela acknowledged having served as an assistant at the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, at the request of Planté Aravena, although he limited his actions to domestic chores at the location. However, the above was refuted by the testimony of José Aguilera Godoy, who identified him as the person who detained his uncle Nazario Godoy and hit him on the forehead; by the statements of Jacinta Godoy, who incriminates him as one of the subjects who detained her husband Manuel Salamanca; by the assertions of Julio Erices on page 412, who mentions him as one of the subjects who went around armed with the Barrueto brothers during the detentions; by the testimony of José Aguilera on page 440, who points him out as one of the civilians who intervened in the detention of Desiderio Aguilera; and by the testimony of Maritza Cuevas on page 2078 and Dorian Cuevas on page 1031, who identify him as the subject who was at their house on the day of their father's detention." "Finally," it continues, "regarding Jorge Domínguez Larenas, the forty-fifth finding refers to the fact that he acknowledged having provided collaboration to the Carabineros of the Santa Bárbara station, being recruited by Lieutenant Planté Aravena, from whom he obeyed direct orders; however, he limits his actions to domestic chores inside the station. Notwithstanding the above, this exculpation was refuted by the statements of Juana D’Apollonio, who in the scene reconstruction proceeding identified him as one of the subjects who entered her house, detaining her relatives, corroborated also by the testimony of Juana D’Apollonio on page 1215, who points him out as one of the individuals who entered her home, taking out her father, whom they loaded into a red pickup truck owned by the defendant Domínguez, and the statement of Catalina Zapata on page 2755, who points him out as one of the subjects who participated in the detention of her husband." For the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court: "All of the above constitute factual circumstances that account for the performance of actions that it is not possible to consider as mere cooperation—in the terms of Article 16 of the Penal Code—but must be classified as executive, since they demonstrate the performance of acts that constitute the confinement and detention of another, without legal right, depriving them of liberty, that is, the facts that the law describes to typify the crime of kidnapping, so their participation corresponds to that of direct authors for having taken part in the execution of the act." "Consequently, the second-instance court errs in stating that their conduct could only be considered as complicity, since their actions were not limited to performing acts of assistance or collaboration but of execution in the punishable act, an error of law that has had a substantial influence on the operative part of the challenged ruling, since it is evident that if the cited provisions had been correctly applied, Luis Barrueto Bartning, Manuel Barrueto Bartning, Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela, and Jorge Domínguez Larenas would have been convicted as authors of the crimes of qualified kidnapping referred to in the preceding findings," the ruling concludes. The highest court also addressed: "That, on the other hand, and notwithstanding the rejection of the appeal in substance filed by the Law 19.123 Continuation Program, on page 9807, due to defects in its formalization, during the deliberation stage, it was noted that the second-instance sentence also revoked that of the lower court, by estimating that the actions performed by the accused Luis Barrueto Bartning and Manuel Barrueto Bartning in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Julio Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Aguilera, and Miguel Cuevas Pincheira; the accused Jorge Valdivia Dames and José Valdivia Dames in the crime of qualified kidnapping of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira; the accused Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Julio Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Aguilera, and Miguel Cuevas Pincheira; the accused Eugenio Villa Urrutia and José Gutiérrez Ortiz in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Cristino Cid Fuentealba, José Pinto Pinto, Luis Cid Cid, Luis Bastías Sandoval, Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, Gabriel Viveros Flores, and José Molina Quezada; the accused Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzaran in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Cristino Cid Fuentealba, José Pinto Pinto, Luis Cid Cid, Luis Bastías Sandoval, and Raimundo Salazar Muñoz; and the defendant Exequiel Celedón Barrera in the crimes of qualified kidnapping of Cristino Cid Fuentealba and José Pinto Pinto, could only be considered as complicity, notwithstanding that, as can be seen from findings 65°, 66°, 67°, 70°, 71°, 58°, 59°, 62°, 63°, 54°, 55°, 80°, 84°, 82°, 85°, and 86° of the first-instance ruling, all of them intervened together with the police officers in the illegal detention of the aforementioned victims, to then take them to the Santa Bárbara police station, with their whereabouts remaining unknown to this date." "Under these conditions, each of the mentioned accused executed part of the conduct described by the criminal type, that is, they intervene in their own action, and are not limited to cooperating in that of another, thereby incurring the lower court judges in the cause for appeal in substance contemplated in Article 546 N°1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—by attributing participation to them as accomplices, an error of law that has had a substantial influence on the operative part of the challenged ruling, since the correct application of Article 15 of the Penal Code would have led to convicting them as authors in the crimes indicated regarding each of them, which is important for the purposes of making use of the power to act ex officio, since it is permitted only when the appeal has been rejected due to formalization defects, as provided by Article 785 of the Code of Civil Procedure," it concludes. Executions and disappearances In the first-instance ruling, visiting minister Raquel Lermanda established the following facts: "1.- That on September 23, 1973, around 3:10 a.m., in circumstances where Sergio D'Apollonio Petermann was in his house located in the 'La Palma' plot, Santa Bárbara commune, a group mobilized with 4 to 5 Carabineros and civilians arrived, proceeding to detain him without a competent judicial or administrative order, being subsequently taken to an unknown location, from which moment all news of his whereabouts or existence is unknown to this date. 2.- That on September 23, 1973, in circumstances where Carlos Jacinto D'Apollonio Zapata was in his house located in the La Palma plot in the Santa Bárbara commune, a mobilized group of approximately 4 or 5 people arrived, among whom were Carabineros and civilians, proceeding to detain him without a competent legal order, taking him out of his home and transporting him to the bridge that joins the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco over the Bío Bío River, where he was placed on one of the railings and shot with a firearm, his body falling into the river and being dragged to one of its banks, where the next day he was found by relatives and acquaintances, wounded by gunfire, being taken to his home to be waked. Around 3:30 p.m. that same day, the same people who apprehended him, and against the authorization of the family and without a legal administrative order, stole said body, apparently lifeless, and took it away to an unknown destination. 3.- That around 2:30 p.m. on September 17, 1973, Elba Burgos Sáez was detained on Camilo Henríquez Street between Rosas and Manuel Rodríguez streets in Santa Bárbara by Carabineros officers, without a legal arrest warrant existing against her, and they were moving in a pickup truck into which they loaded her, with all news of her whereabouts or existence being unknown from that date to this date. 4.- That, around 4:00 p.m. on November 7, 1973, in circumstances where Aliro Segundo Oporto Durán, 17 years of age, was in a house located in the Raleo sector of the town of Alto Bío Bío, Carabineros personnel arrived to detain him without a competent legal order, with him running toward the bank of the Bío Bío River and being pursued by the police, one of whom shot him, managing to apprehend him, from which moment all news of his whereabouts or existence is unknown. 5.- That, in the afternoon of September 17, 1973, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, and José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme went voluntarily to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, complying with a summons that had been made to them by Carabineros of the aforementioned Police Unit through Juan Albornoz Lagos, being entered into said station as detainees, without a competent legal order, with all news about their whereabouts or destination being unknown from that date. 6.- That, on September 14, 1973, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama and Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama were detained at their home located in a hut on the Corcovado estate, on the road to Villacura, in the Santa Bárbara commune, by Carabineros personnel and civilians, without a legal detention order existing and without there being knowledge of their destination or whereabouts to this date. 7.- That, on September 16, 1973, Juan de Dios and Julio Alberto Rubio Llancao were detained and taken to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station under the charge of the Unit Chief, Lieutenant Planté Aravena Sáez. The same day, Guillermo Purrán Treca went to the indicated police unit in search of protection because he could not return to his home, as the bus had left him and the start time of the curfew was approaching, remaining detained. At night, the three, plus José María Tranamil Pereira, who was also detained without a competent order, were taken out of the station and transported to the Quilaco bridge where the Carabineros shot them, with all news about the destination or whereabouts of Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, and José Guillermo Purrán Treca being unknown from that date. 8.- a) That, in the morning of September 20, 1973, in the Santa Bárbara commune, a group of Carabineros and civilians, armed with firearms, who were moving in motorized vehicles and without having a legitimate order, arrived at the 'El Huachi' estate, located 8 kilometers from that commune, and detained José Domingo Godoy Acuña, Julio César Godoy Godoy, and Desiderio Aguilera Solís, transporting them to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, from where they were taken out at night to an unknown destination and without them having been seen again or there being news of their whereabouts to this date; b) That, after the above occurred and at approximately 2:00 p.m. on the same day, September 20, 1973, the same group, without a legitimate order, detained José Nazario Godoy Acuña in the Los Junquillos sector of the Santa Bárbara commune, in the presence of José Gilberto Aguilera Godoy, who was subsequently taken to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, and from there, all trace of him was lost, without there being news of his whereabouts to this date; c) That around 10:30 p.m. on September 20, 1973, in the Santa Bárbara commune, a group of Carabineros and civilians, armed with firearms, who were moving in motorized vehicles and without having a legitimate order, arrived at the home of Manuel Salamanca Mella, located on Avenida La Feria without number in Santa Bárbara, where they proceeded to detain him in the presence of his relatives, to then take him to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, where he was last seen, without him having been seen again or there being news of his whereabouts to this date, and; d) That, after that, on the same date, the same group went to the boarding house located at Rosas Street N° 343 in the Santa Bárbara commune, where, without a legitimate order, they proceeded to detain José Mariano Godoy Acuña, who was taken to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, where he was last seen without him having been seen again or there being news of his whereabouts to this date. 9.- That on the night of September 20, 1973, an armed group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at the home of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira located at Rosas Street N° 371 in Santa Bárbara and, without a legitimate order, proceeded to detain him in the presence of his relatives, spouse, and children, taking him out of his house and transporting him to an unknown location without him having been seen again or there being news of his whereabouts to this date. 10.- That, around 4:30 p.m. on September 16, 1973, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz presented himself voluntarily to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, as he had been summoned previously, remaining detained without a legitimate order being shown to him and without there being news of his whereabouts to this date. 11.- a) That in the Quilaco commune, in the days following September 11, 1973, a group of civilians and Carabineros, all armed with firearms and moving in motorized vehicles, without having a legitimate order, arrived at the home of Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, located on the El Rodal plot, on the outskirts of Quilaco, proceeding to detain him in the presence of his relatives, to then take him walking from that location to an unknown destination, without him having been seen again or there being news of his whereabouts to this date; b) That, in the early morning of September 20, 1973, a group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at the home of José Felidor Pinto Pinto, a leader of the Campo Lindo peasant settlement, located on the old Huinquén estate, whom they detained, taking him out of his house and taking him in vehicles from that location, with the same group moving with him to an unknown destination, from which moment there was never any news or knowledge again, his trace disappearing to this date; c) That after the above occurred, and being more or less at noon on September 20, 1973, the same group went to the Loncopangue villa and also to the vicinity of the Rañiguel estate in the same sector, proceeding to detain Luis Alberto Cid Cid, Luis Bastías Sandoval, and Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, being loaded into a Municipality of Quilaco truck driven by José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz, known as 'El Chamo,' to then be taken along the public road that leads to Quilaco to a path that leads to the confluence of the Bío Bío and Quilmes rivers, where they were taken off the vehicle and watched by their captors, they were taken walking to the banks of the indicated watercourses, at which moment their captors allegedly shot them with firearms, their bodies falling into the channel of the mentioned rivers, with their whereabouts being unknown to this date; d) That, that same day, in the afternoon, Segundo Marcial Soto Quijón was detained in Quilaco without a legitimate order by a group made up of Carabineros and civilians, a date from which there has been no news of his whereabouts; e) That, in the morning of November 3, 1973, at approximately 11:00 a.m., a group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at Plot N° 112 of the Piñiquihue sector of the Quilaco commune, the home of José Roberto Molina Quezada, whom they detained without a legitimate order, took him out of his house, and took him away in a vehicle to an unknown destination, from which moment there was never any news or knowledge of his whereabouts again; f) That on the night of Saturday, November 3, 1973, an armed group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at the home of Gabriel José Viveros Flores located on the outskirts of Loncopangue, proceeding to detain him in the presence of his relatives, taking him out of his house and transporting him to an unknown location without him having returned or there being news of his whereabouts to this date." Decision to overturn the sentence ex officio with the dissenting vote of Minister Letelier, who considered it inappropriate regarding the brothers Jorge Eduardo and José Roberto Valdivia Dames.

Source: pdju.cl, October 20, 2022

Details of the conviction of former Carabineros and civilians for the qualified kidnappings of 28 peasants

The Supreme Court issued prison sentences for four former police officers and 11 civilians who participated in the detentions that occurred between Santa Bárbara and Quilaco in 1973. Carlos D'Apollonio Zapata (22 years old) and his father Sergio D'Apollonio Petermann (48) were seized at their home in the La Palma plot on September 23, 1973, by a patrol composed of Carabineros officers and civilians.

Witnesses saw when both were taken shortly after to the bridge that joins Quilaco with Santa Bárbara. Right there, they were executed and thrown into the Biobío River. During the early hours of the following day, the relatives only managed to rescue Carlos's corpse and took it to their home to be waked.

However, the same captors from the day before broke into the house again and took the body, without there being any clue as to its location to this date. This is one of the many events that surrounded the crimes perpetrated after the coup d'état, between September and November 1973, by a patrol formed by uniformed personnel and civilians, which left a toll of 28 forcibly disappeared persons, mostly peasants from the Quilaco and Santa Bárbara areas.

Led by the then-Carabineros Lieutenant Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez, the group had the active participation of civilians in the detentions and subsequent disappearances of the victims. It took 20 years for the judicial investigation to begin.

In 2000, there was a preliminary investigation initiated by the head of the Santa Bárbara Criminal Court, Waldemar Koch, continued by the judge with special dedication for human rights cases, Miguel Salgado, based on a resolution of the Supreme Court, following the agreements of the Dialogue Table.

Later, the case passed into the hands of the special minister for Human Rights cases, Carlos Aldana Fuentes, who issued sentences in 2017 that were ratified by the Concepción Court of Appeals in 2019. Last Thursday, after 49 years since the crimes occurred, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court finally issued a final judgment for the former Carabineros and civilians implicated in the detentions and disappearances of those 28 peasants.

The highest court overturned ex officio part of the sentence issued in 2017 by the Concepción Court of Appeals, in the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement sentence, convicted them as authors for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings.

The determination was adopted by ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Dahm, Leopoldo Llanos, and Minister María Teresa Letelier. In the end, the following were convicted as authors of the crimes: former Carabineros officers Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez (14 years in prison); Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán (11 years in prison); José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme (11 years in prison); and Carlos Santiago Sepúlveda Rivera (10 years and one day).

Also convicted were civilians Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Barrera (10 years and one day); Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela (6 years of imprisonment); Luis Enrique Ricardo Antonio Barrueto Bartning (6 years of imprisonment); Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning (6 years of imprisonment); Jorge Denis Domínguez Larenas (5 years and one day in prison); Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames (5 years and one day in prison); José Roberto Valdivia Dames (5 years and one day in prison); Eugenio Villa Urrutia (4 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release); Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán (4 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release); and José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz (4 years in prison, with the benefit of supervised release). The court overturned ex officio the appealed sentence in the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement sentence, convicted them as authors for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings.

THE VICTIMS

José Domingo Godoy Acuña, Julio Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Solís, José Nazario Godoy Acuña, Manuel Salamanca Mella, José Mariano Godoy Acuña, Miguel Cuevas Pincheira, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme, Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, José Guillermo Purrán Treca, Elba Burgos Sáez, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama, Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama, Sergio D´Apollonio Petermann, Aliro Oporto Durán, Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, José Felidor Pinto Pinto, Luis Alberto Cid Cid, Luis Alberto Bastías Sandoval, Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, Gabriel José Viveros Flores, Segundo Marcial Soto Quijón, and José Roberto Molina Quezada.

Source: latribuna.cl, October 24, 2022