D.O.B. : 06-10-39, 35 years old at the time of detention Address : El Ulmo 4050, Santiago Marital Status : Married Occupation : Civil Engineer Repressive Status : General Manager of Cobre Chuqui as of September 11, 1973. Member of the Communist Party Date of Detention : October 4, 1974

REPRESSIVE SITUATION

David Silberman Gurovich, married, civil engineer, General Manager of Cobre Chuqui as of September 11, 1973, and a member of the Communist Party, voluntarily presented himself on September 15, 1973, to the Military Commander of Calama, Major Fernando Reveco Valenzuela.

He was detained and subjected to proceedings by a Wartime Military Tribunal in Calama. On September 28 of that year, the War Council sentenced him to 10 years in prison for crimes under the State Security Law and 3 years under the Arms Control Law, with the sentence to be served in Santiago, as he had been summoned from there by official decree.

Around October 2, he was incarcerated in the Santiago Penitentiary. On October 4 of the same year, he was removed from the Penitentiary and taken to the Air Force War Academy to testify in case file 1-73 of the Aviation Prosecutor's Office, remaining at that facility until October 20, the day he was returned to the Santiago Penitentiary.

In the meantime, at the Calama Jail, where several people—executives of Cobre Chuqui and members of the Socialist and Communist Parties—were serving sentences from the same War Council, approximately 25 prisoners were removed on October 19, 1973.

They were executed by firing squad, and their bodies were hidden from their families. Among the victims were Aroldo Cabrera, a manager at the same company who was next in hierarchy to Silberman; Carlos Berger, the company's Head of Communications; and David Miranda, also a Cobre Chuqui executive.

Their executioners were members of General Sergio Arellano Stark's delegation, which included Army officers Marcelo Moren Brito, Sergio Arredondo, Pedro Espinoza, and Armando Fernández Larios. All of them would go on to become part of the DINA high command.

David Silberman remained in the Santiago Penitentiary until October 4, 1974. On this date, he was removed from the prison facility by DINA agents who forged Army documents to deceive the Gendarmerie and secure the release of the detainee.

Once outside the facility, David Silberman was taken to the house that the security agency maintained at José Domingo Cañas. From there, on October 5, he was taken to 4 Alamos, only to be moved again on the 6th or 7th of that month back to José Domingo Cañas, where he remained until the middle of the month.

He was then transferred to 4 Alamos, from where he was forcibly disappeared at the end of October or the first days of November.

The DINA operation that removed David Silberman Gurovich from the prison was accounted for by the Director General of Prisons himself when questioned by the Courts of Justice. The Director stated that "on October 4, 1974, at 18:40 hours, the detainee David Silberman Gurovich was handed over to Army Lieutenant Alejandro Quinteros Romero—identified by his corresponding Professional Identification Card—who removed him with a written order from Colonel Marcelo Rodríguez U., Military Advisor to the War Councils in the Military Tribunals.

The prisoner was removed in a white Willys vehicle, of Argentine Ika-Renault manufacture, inside of which there was uniformed Army personnel, like Lieutenant Quinteros, armed with rifles."

In the proceedings conducted by the Military Justice system, the same version from the Gendarmerie is recorded, adding that the official document carried by Lieutenant Quinteros indicated that the Warden was to hand over Silberman to Lieutenant Quinteros due to his participation in military infiltration, the assault on a branch of the Banco de Chile, and sedition.

The order was to be confirmed by calling 516403, to Auditor Leyton or Commander Rodríguez. Upon entering the prison, Lieutenant Quinteros gave the "password" and entered along with another officer, while two others remained outside.

One of these had habitually brought detainees to the Penitentiary and was, therefore, known to the Gendarmes. Once the order was confirmed at the cited phone number, the Warden handed over Silberman, drafting a record signed by him and by Quinteros, who identified himself with his TIFA (Professional Identification Card) 245-03.

Subsequently, it was confirmed that none of the officers named in the document, nor Quinteros himself, belonged to the Army; the organization known as "Military Advisory to Wartime Tribunals" did not exist, nor did the TIFA 245-03.

For his part, the detective in charge of the investigation order issued in the case went to the Chiloé Plant of the Telephone Company and verified that on October 3, 1974, Chief Alejandro Olivos Olivos had arrived at said plant.

Under the pretext of performing a test connection to Isla de Maipo, he asked to enter the "Lightning Rod" (the place where all connections are located) and, using a "wiring tool," performed some work on the panel where the phones from 516401 to 516449 are located, with traces found on 516403.

For his part, Mr. Olivos, in his judicial statement, affirms that he did indeed go to said plant in compliance with a confidential mission assigned by the Supervisor of Special Affairs of the Company, Major Marcos Derpich Miranda; that he gave the Isla de Maipo test as a pretext; that he asked for the wiring tool and rejected all help; that his mission consisted of provisionally enabling a telephone to supply Avda.

Pedro Montt by connecting 516403; finally, he stated in his declaration that he was unaware of the purpose of this special and confidential assignment.

The stay of David Silberman in DINA facilities, after being kidnapped from the Penitentiary, is accounted for by the testimonies of former prisoners who survived the torture and the methods of death and disappearance.

Ms. Rosalía Martínez Cereceda states in her testimony that she was detained on September 23, 1974, and transferred to the José Domingo Cañas facility. While in that facility, David Silberman Gurovich arrived directly from the Penitentiary; she had known him from before.

David appeared very worried as he did not understand the purpose of his sudden transfer; he also told her anecdotes about his life in the Santiago Penitentiary. On October 5, the witness, along with other people, including David Silberman, were transferred to 4 Alamos, where all detainees were registered in the respective book.

The detainee's husband, Julio Manuel Laks, who was detained with her, remained at José Domingo Cañas, where he met with David again in mid-October 1974.

Mr. Manuel José Salinas Letelier states in his testimony that he was detained on January 16, 1974, and remained incarcerated in the facilities of Londres 38, Tejas Verdes, San Antonio Jail, 4 Alamos, and Puchuncaví.

In the first two facilities, he was intensely tortured. During his stay at 4 Alamos, he remembers several prisoners, among them David Silberman, who was removed from the jail for the second time.

Ms. Cecilia Jarpa Zúñiga states in her declaration that she was detained on October 3, 1974, and transferred to José Domingo Cañas, where she was interrogated and tortured. Around October 12 or 15, she arrived at the room where Silberman Gurovich was located, who had been brought from the Penitentiary.

Subsequently, he was moved to a neighboring room, which she confirmed by hearing his name on the duty guard's list. From there, he was removed and taken with other detainees to 4 Alamos.

Mr. Juan Ramón Ramírez Cortés declares that he was detained in January 1974 and remained incarcerated in Londres 38, Tejas Verdes, 4 Alamos, Ritoque, and Puchuncaví. He arrived at 4 Alamos in August 1974 when that Incommunicado pavilion was still under the control of the Carabineros; later, the DINA took charge.

Several detainees were brought there, among them David Silberman. He looked battered and dejected. He spoke with him, mentioning that he had known him since he had been at MADECO participating in a forum on Copper. He asked him something more about his health and did not insist further, as he seemed very withdrawn.

Mr. Cristián Van Yurick Altamirano, detained by the DINA on July 12, 1974, recounts in his testimony that at the end of October 1974, while he was in room No. 13 of 4 Alamos, David Silberman Gurovich arrived.

He told him that he came from room No. 12 of the same facility, where he had remained alone. He also told him that they had taken him from the Santiago Penitentiary to José Domingo Cañas, where they had tortured and interrogated him about the same matters that were the subject of the proceedings in which he had been sentenced.

In the conversation, he expressed his fear that his transfer was related to an internal summary proceeding in the Armed Forces against an officer who had detained him in the north and who had allegedly failed to carry out an order to kill him.

At the José Domingo Cañas house, he was interrogated by Marcelo Moren Brito and Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, who boasted "that no one escaped from them," which is why he feared that the order to assassinate him would be carried out.

The witness adds in his testimony that David showed the effects of torture but was in recovery and lucid. They remained together for three or four days, and one morning they took him away.

Luz Arce, a former detainee who collaborated with the DINA after being subjected to cruel torture, states in her testimony that during her second detention, which occurred in August 1975, she was interrogated extensively about David Silberman and about a suitcase he allegedly had with dollars.

Another piece of evidence is the testimony of Otto Eduardo Becerra Schwartz, a former Squadron Commander of the FACH (Chilean Air Force), detained after September 11, 1973, who states that while he was incarcerated in the Santiago Penitentiary in the same cell as David Silberman, the latter confided in him about a fact that worried him and that had been related to General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. "It happened that on a certain occasion, during the Popular Unity government, Pinochet held some activity or position related to mining; and in a meeting where, among others, Silberman and Pinochet were present, the latter asked a question, to which Silberman replied that he should not ask stupid questions, or something to that effect." The witness adds in his declaration that he "knows he heard some speech or statement by Pinochet in which he referred in very negative terms regarding David Silberman."

His spouse, Ms. Mariana Abarzúa Rojo, made multiple efforts to find his whereabouts after he was removed from the Penitentiary. Among them, she spoke with General Sergio Arellano Stark, who appeared surprised by the fact, stating that there was no pending process against the affected party and that he had not signed any order for his transfer.

Subsequently, he replied that he was not being held by any Prosecutor's Office nor any Intelligence Service and that she should channel her inquiries through the General Directorate of Prisons and the Ministry of Justice. However, despite having consulted all administrative authorities, she still does not know the fate that befell her husband at the hands of the DINA.

JUDICIAL AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

On October 14, 1974, a writ of amparo (habeas corpus) was filed on his behalf before the Santiago Court of Appeals, case file 1249-74, in which information was requested from the Ministers of the Interior and Defense.

On November 11, 1974, the Minister of the Interior, General Raúl Benavides Escobar, informed the Court that the beneficiary of the amparo had been sentenced to serve a corporal penalty, for which purpose he was transferred to the Santiago Penitentiary, and that he was not in a position to provide further information regarding the affected party, as the powers of the State of Siege had not been exercised against him.

That same month, the Minister of Defense stated that David Silberman had not been reported to the Military Justice system and had no records in that Ministry. The response from the head of Defense is incomprehensible, given that the beneficiary had been sentenced by a Military Tribunal.

In the same month of November, the petitioner informed the Court that the victim was seen on October 8 at the 3 Alamos Camp (whose incommunicado pavilion is 4 Alamos). In turn, the Tribunal requested reports from the Ministry of Justice and the General Directorate of Prisons.

The Ministry of Justice informed in its response that it had reported the facts referred to in the appeal to the 2nd Military Court of Santiago, initiating criminal summary 1053-74 in the 2nd Military Prosecutor's Office.

For its part, the Gendarmerie reported on the procedure used to remove Silberman from the Penitentiary, the content of which has already been exposed. Based on the merits of the evidence gathered in the case files, the appeal was rejected on November 27, 1974, and the evidence was sent to the aforementioned Prosecutor's Office to be added to the proceedings.

The Court rejected the indication of Minister Paillás to issue an official letter to the Warden of the Penitentiary, the DINA, and the Commander of 3 Alamos. The Court's resolution was appealed by the petitioner.

On December 4, the Supreme Court issued an official letter to the Commander of the 3 Alamos Camp and the 2nd Military Prosecutor's Office to report if he had been present at the aforementioned camp. Prosecutor Rolando Melo Silva, of the 2nd Prosecutor's Office, informed the Highest Tribunal that this procedure had not been carried out and that said Tribunal had consulted the organization under whose authority the mentioned camp is found, having received a negative response.

On January 14, 1975, the Supreme Court, faced with the refusal of the Commander of 3 Alamos to respond to the official letters of the Superior Tribunal, represented the fact to the Minister of Defense so that he would set a short and peremptory deadline for the Commander to respond to what was requested.

On January 22, given that there was still no response from said authorities, the evidence was sent to the full Tribunal for the pertinent purposes. On January 23, the Supreme Tribunal agreed to direct an official letter to President Augusto Pinochet, representing the expressed non-compliance.

On January 28, 1975, the Minister of the Interior responded to the official letter sent to General Pinochet, stating that said Ministry had requested a report regarding the reasons why what was requested by the Supreme Court was not answered in a timely manner, while indicating that David Silberman had not been detained in 3 Alamos.

Based on the merits of this response, on January 31, 1975, the appealed resolution was confirmed, and it was agreed to issue an official letter to Prosecutor Rolando Melo, with the aim that he activate case 1053-74 with the greatest diligence, having to report on its progress to the Supreme Court every 15 days.

On June 11, 1975, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to issue an official letter to the Military Prosecutor demanding the periodic reports that were requested of him. The Supreme Tribunal accepted said request and on July 3 requested a report from Prosecutor Rolando Melo, setting a deadline of 5 days; 27 days later, that is, on July 30, as there was no response from the Prosecutor, the evidence was again brought to the attention of the Full Tribunal, agreeing, on August 1, to issue an official letter to the Military Judge representing the situation to him while requesting the evacuation of the required reports.

On August 5, the Military Judge, Julio Polloni Pérez, informed the Supreme Court that in the Second Military Prosecutor's Office of Santiago, case No. 1053-74 is being instructed, which is in the summary stage, having pointed out to the Prosecutor a special concern regarding its prompt conclusion.

This is all that can be reported. The Superior Tribunal added the previous report to the evidence and rejected the indication of 4 of its ministers, who were of the opinion to request the Military Judge to remit the case files No. 1053-74.

On August 26, 1975, a separate file of the pertinent documents was formed, and the appeal was returned to the Court of Appeals in order to comply with the resolution to remit the copies to the 2nd Military Prosecutor's Office to be added to case 1053-74.

On January 19, 1976, the petitioner again requested the Supreme Court to issue an official letter to the Military Prosecutor, demanding compliance with what was ordered by the Highest Tribunal; this time, they accompanied the request with a sworn statement from the witness Rosalía Martínez Cereceda, who testifies to having been detained in a DINA facility together with the beneficiary.

On January 23, 1976, the Supreme Court granted the request to ask for a report from the Prosecutor, while requesting the respective process. On March 2, having no response from the Prosecutor, the situation was again brought to the attention of the Full Tribunal, agreeing to request an explanation from the Prosecutor regarding the reasons for the non-compliance with the repeated resolutions of the Supreme Court.

On March 29, 1976, finally, Prosecutor Rolando Melo Silva saw fit to respond to the Supreme Tribunal, expressing that as soon as the alluded official letter was received, that Prosecutor's Office reported to its direct Superior, the Commander-in-Chief of the II Army Division, who stated that he would provide the required information as soon as the Honorable Court requested it, ordering that said Prosecutor's Office answer in that sense to this high Tribunal.

Based on the merits of this response, the Supreme Court ordered the filing of the amparo appeal, leaving the petitioner, and the Supreme Tribunal itself, without knowing the proceedings and evidence attached to case 1053-74.

Long after the conclusion of case 1053-74 instructed in the Second Military Prosecutor's Office of Santiago, the defense of the Silberman family was given knowledge of the process with the express prohibition of taking notes.

In said case, it is recorded what was reported by the Gendarmerie regarding the procedure used to remove Silberman from the Penitentiary, noting that none of the gentlemen Ibáñez, Rodríguez, Quinteros, and Leyton belong to the Army, and furthermore, the organization called "Military Advisory to Wartime Tribunals" is non-existent; neither does TIFA 245-03 exist, and the Telephone Company reported that number 516403 is vacant.

It is also recorded that both the DINA and the other Security agencies denied any participation in the events. In the investigation order carried out by Investigations, the procedure performed by the detective in charge is recorded, who went to the Chiloé Plant of the Telephone Company, the content of which has already been exposed.

As a result of this report, the Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant against Alejandro Olivos Olivos, who was arrested at the exit of the Telephone Company with a briefcase that he asked not be opened because it contained confidential Government documents, which was respected.

In his statement, Olivos expresses that he acted in compliance with an order from Major Marcos Derpich Miranda; after his statement, he remained detained and incommunicado. Subsequently, Major Derpich appeared at the Prosecutor's Office, who pointed out that he was designated at the Company for special confidential work, maintaining daily contact with all Intelligence Services of all branches of the Armed Forces; when they designated him for the position, he asked for a person of trust, and Mr.

Olivos was recommended to him, who to date has shown him great loyalty. But after his statements, he has lost confidence in him. He flatly denies having given the instruction alluded to.

In view of the contradiction of both declarants, a confrontation is carried out in which each maintains their statements, for which Prosecutor Rolando Melo Silva, unusually, leaves both in unconditional freedom. Olivos was detained between November 19 and 25, 1974.

Subsequently, the DINA issued a report added to the case, in which it expresses that it has been definitively proven that Silberman, a communist militant, was removed from the Penitentiary by the "arch-enemy" of the Communist Party, the MIR, as is definitively demonstrated by the following elements: in a confrontation, the MIR member Claudio Rodríguez (Lautaro) died, and documents were found on him that allowed a raid on the house of the MIR member Alejandro de la Barra.

In his house, a TIFA was found with the name of Lieutenant Quinteros, with No. 245-03, but with the photo of Rodríguez. This demonstrates that it was Lautaro (Rodríguez) with false military identification in the name of Quinteros who removed Silberman from the Penitentiary.

The DINA report adds that a standard micro-telephone was also found, which allows, according to the attached report by Engineer Vianel Valdivieso Cervantes, to connect to any telephone, which proves that Rodríguez made the connection to confirm the order for Silberman's removal.

The DINA points out to the Prosecutor that when the TIFA 243-03, with the photo of Rodríguez and the name of Quinteros, was shown to the Warden of the Penitentiary, he denied that the person who removed Silberman corresponded to the one in the photograph of the TIFA, which is why the Warden must be exhaustively investigated for being a cover-up for extremists.

According to what was reported by the DINA, the Prosecutor summoned the Warden, who expressed that the photo is not that of Quinteros who removed Silberman, as one can clearly appreciate the difference between the spoken portrait made by him and the photo of the TIFA.

On the other hand, the TIFA that is exhibited is blue, from the old forms; the TIFA of Quinteros that was shown to him when Silberman left is from the new green forms; the photo that is exhibited is in black and white, while the photograph that was shown to him to remove the prisoner was in color, as are the current ones.

When all the other Prison officials were summoned, they unanimously and without doubt in their statements expressed that the photo of Rodríguez in the TIFA delivered by the DINA is not of the person who removed Silberman.

When Engineer Valdivieso was summoned, he stated that he would not appear before the Tribunal, unless ordered by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, under whose orders he worked. The Prosecutor left the summons without effect.

In the process, there are two statements from witnesses who were with Silberman in the days following October 4, first in a DINA house located in José Domingo Cañas and then in 4 Alamos, also under DINA control. On August 23, 1976, the Prosecutor in his opinion requests the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the kidnapping of the offended party is proven, but not the author of it.

On October 20 of that year, the Military Judge temporarily dismissed the process on the grounds that the crime is not proven, since in his opinion, Silberman could perfectly well have left of his own free will, and all the testimonies to the contrary come from people of the same political ideology, so they cannot constitute proof.

Regarding administrative actions, his spouse, Ms. Mariana Abarzúa Rojo, held conversations with almost all the authorities of the time. Thus, on October 9, 1975, she spoke with an official of the Ministry of the Interior, who told her that her husband was in the hands of a Security Service and that he would return to the Penitentiary between October 12 or 13.

However, all subsequent inquiries proved fruitless.

On October 8, 1992, before the 10th Criminal Court of Santiago, a complaint was filed for the kidnapping of David Silberman Gurovich; said case entered processing with case file No. 53084-7, and as of December 1992, it is in the summary stage and has important pending procedures.

Source: Vicaría de la Solidaridad

"He dedicated many hours to Chuqui; we saw him little, but it was part of the sacrifice. When things at work dragged on, he would move some of the meetings to the house and continue until late. There were always many people around," recalls one of his three children, Daniel, by phone from Israel. "Codelco was like a national mission; that was the meaning.

Many people who arrived from Santiago to the north carried the idea that something very important was being created for Chile; that was the feeling that existed," he adds. Despite the little time they shared with him, Daniel says he keeps in his memories the image of a loving and protective father, with a very good sense of humor. "He was good at jokes, but at the same time very serious in his work," he relates.

At social gatherings, he almost always ended up showing off his skills as a trumpeter. "It was known that when the atmosphere relaxed a little, my dad would take out the trumpet and start playing and singing with people. That's why they had a lot of affection for him."

David Silberman was an active communist militant of Jewish descent. A Civil Industrial Engineer by profession, he assumed the general management of Chuquicamata after the Nationalization of Copper. He held that position until September 11, 1973. "There was a coup in Santiago; I don't know what is going to happen.

You take the children and go to the Encalada house," he told his wife, Mariana Abarzúa. He took refuge in another place and four days later surrendered voluntarily in Calama, following a military decree calling on him to present himself before the new military authorities.

He was detained and subjected to proceedings. At the end of September, the War Council sentenced him to ten years in prison, and he was transferred to the Santiago Penitentiary. "For a year, my dad was in the status of a detainee, which we considered very fortunate, because there were many people disappeared or dead.

He was not in the best conditions, but he was relatively safe. That year was very special, in the sense of getting to know him better, because he sent letters to each of us in which he asked us about our school activities, sports, things like that, but he also told us a little about the dynamics of life in prison," he recalls.

David Silberman remained in the Penitentiary until October 4, 1974, when, with forged documents, he was removed from the facility by DINA agents. From that date, the family knew nothing more about him.

In the Rettig Report, testimonies from different surviving prisoners account for the fact that he was subjected to interrogations and torture in the centers of José Domingo Cañas and Cuatro Álamos. "All the investigations of the Vicaría de la Solidaridad and the Rettig Report state that he was executed two weeks after he was kidnapped from prison.

But we learned that many years later. We, three years after his disappearance, came to the idea that we would not find him." In 1977, the family went into exile in Israel, with his paternal grandparents. In their three years of searching prior to that trip, they were permanently raided and watched by DINA agents.

In 2005, Judge Jorge Zepeda sentenced former General Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda and former Colonel Marcelo Moren Brito for the death of David Silberman, 35 years old, a sentence ratified by the Supreme Court in 2009. Information based on the testimony of his son, Daniel Silberman.

Source: codelco.com 2023

Daniel Silberman is the son of David Silberman Gurovich, a Chilean citizen detained in 1973 and disappeared since 1974, during the dictatorial regime of Augusto Pinochet. Together with other children of Chilean disappeared persons living in Israel, he asks this country to declassify documents related to Israel's military relationship with Chile during the time of the dictatorship.

After a request directly denied by the government, they filed a complaint before the Tel Aviv district court, which led to a conciliation agreement inviting the Israeli government to gradually declassify the relevant documents.

Daniel Silberman reveals to us the state of things at the end of 2016 and insists on the importance of his struggle: in addition to a personal interest in discovering clues about his father's whereabouts, it is about opening a debate in Israel on the prohibition of selling weapons to dictatorial regimes or those that violate human rights.

Source: radiosefarad.com 12/10/2022 Date: 12-10-2022

Son of disappeared David Silberman publishes book of short stories (tribute)

"La manito muerta" (The Dead Little Hand) will be presented next Thursday, September 15, at the Villa Grimaldi Peace Park. "The importance of speaking and telling these stories is, in my opinion, critical for the future of Chile.

This dark era cannot be swept under the rug. For the Chilean people to be able to move forward, heal, and reconcile, the story must be told, justice must be done, and it must be implemented in the educational system to ensure that such stories do not happen again," he comments.

A meeting with David Silberman Abarzúa will be held next Thursday at the Villa Grimaldi Peace Park, regarding his book "La manito muerta" (Lom Editorial). It is a collection of short stories that illustrates the lives of dozens of victims of the Chilean dictatorship after the 1973 civic-military coup.

In them, the attempt of individuals and families to continue with their lives despite the danger, fear, and violation of their most basic rights is narrated, according to the editorial review. "The history of our cultures has been told by men; hence this book seeks to broaden the view, and many of its stories are narrated by children and women.

Each of the accounts is an independent story based on real events, which come together to form a book of human and captivating stories, full of emotion, sharpness, and humor," points out the Lom publishing house. "The book shows only a terrible part of Chilean history, but its message has a global reach that remains valid.

In Chile, democracy fell from one moment to the next, taking the people by surprise. Today, many countries are experiencing a slow and almost invisible process of erosion of their human rights and democratic values, threatening an atrocious future, just as was experienced in Chile.

Thus, from history, the book is a call to protect freedom." Silberman was born in Santiago in 1967. He is the son of Mariana Abarzúa and David Silberman Gurovich, a Chilean disappeared person. In 1977, upon understanding that his father was no longer alive, the family went into exile in Israel.

His father was a member of the Communist Party, a civil engineer, and general manager of Cobre Chuqui. After the coup, he presented himself voluntarily to the authorities and remained detained in the hands of the Chilean Army in Calama.

He was 35 years old. He was subjected to a War Council and sentenced to 10 years in prison, supposedly for infringing the Arms Control Law. He was transferred to the Santiago Penitentiary. Removed from there by DINA agents, he passed through several torture centers.

The Rettig Commission estimated that he was kidnapped and disappeared by said entity to "obtain a large amount of money from the company where Silberman worked and which the DINA agents assumed he had taken with him." In 2005, Judge Jorge Zepeda sentenced former General Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda and former Colonel Marcelo Moren Brito (both deceased) for his death, a sentence ratified by the Supreme Court in 2009.

Personal process

Daniel, today a father of three, is a trilingual author and social activist for human rights who also fights against the sale of weapons from Israel to authoritarian regimes (as was the case in Chile).

Daniel prefers to write in Hebrew. In this language, he originally published "La manito muerta," his third book, which has already been translated and published in English. His initial aspiration was always to publish this book in Spanish—and in Chile—so this edition represents for the author not only the culmination of a literary process but also a personal one. "The origin of the book is mainly autobiographical, the personal history of our family.

I am the son of David Silberman, a disappeared detainee of the dictatorship in Chile. In 1977, we had to leave the country and arrived in Israel, where I live today. The book was originally written in Hebrew, was translated into English, and now finally also into Spanish.

For me, it is super important and symbolic to be able to publish the book in Spanish in Chile," comments the author. On Wednesday, there will also be a presentation at the Museum of Memory.

Source: elmostrador.cl 09/09/2022 Date: 09-09-2022

How the DINA used the Telephone Company to kidnap and disappear its prisoners

The events surrounding David Silberman Gurovic, an engineer and general manager of Cobre Chuqui during the Unidad Popular government, are terrifying. He was demonized by El Mercurio and the entire political opposition while the coup d'état was being prepared, attributing to him—yet another lie—the treason of handing over industrial secrets to the Soviet Union.

Despite being in Calama, on September 11 he appeared in Bando N°10, ordered to report to the Ministry of Defense before 16:30. Silberman did not do so; fearing the worst, he went into hiding, which allowed the newspapers authorized by the Military Junta and television channels to report that Silberman, carrying thousands of dollars, had fled to Argentina. Another lie.

Silberman sought contact with Major Fernando Reveco, the new authority in Calama whom he had known professionally in Chuquicamata, who gave him guarantees to turn himself in. He did so on September 15 and was detained. He was accused of crimes against the security of the State and violations of the Arms Control Law.

It was difficult to constitute the War Council against him: there was no Army auditor in Calama, and no lawyer wanted to join that council, as “everyone in Chuquicamata had respect and appreciation for him,” according to what Reveco himself told me, who was tasked with presiding over it. A notary was forced to join it, and he was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

“If we had applied the death penalty, he would have been executed immediately; if we had acquitted him or given him a light sentence, they would have murdered him. Sentencing him to a light penalty—for the time—was the only way to save his life,” Major Reveco explained to me. And I believe him.

As he was wanted under Bando N°10, he was sent to the Santiago Penitentiary, entering on October 4, 1973. A few days later, a FACh team removed him for interrogation, an operation carried out by officer Cristián García-Huidobro Toro, and he was returned to the Penitentiary 20 days later.

Exactly one year later, on October 4, 1974, the DINA took him from the Penitentiary, and he was lost forever. The Comité Pro Paz (created in the first days of October 1973 at the behest of Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez) entrusted the case to me.

I filed a recurso de amparo (writ of habeas corpus), which, after about a year of dozens of proceedings that I requested and that yielded no results, was dismissed by both the Santiago Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The latter, as usual, accepted the lie as truth: if the government says David Silberman is not detained, he is not. Although in this case, it was a kidnapping.

I remember saying in the Supreme Court that the State has an obligation to protect us all, but especially those whom the State itself keeps under its direct dependency, such as detainees: a detainee cannot simply be lost.

Along with rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered an investigation into what happened, but, obviously, by the military justice system.

I believe that, at this point, it is preferable to refer to the report I issued for the Comité Pro Paz when the investigation was exhausted:

“1.- On October 4, 1974, Army Lieutenant Mr. Alejandro Quinteros Romero appeared at the Santiago Penitentiary, carrying an official letter from the ‘Military Advisory to War Tribunals,’ signed by Colonel Ibáñez—Head of that Service—indicating that the Warden was to hand over Silberman to Lieutenant Quinteros for his participation in military infiltration, assault on a Banco de Chile branch, and sedition.

The order was to be confirmed by calling 516403, to Auditor Mr. Leyton or Commander Rodríguez.

Upon entering the prison (18:30), Lt. Quinteros gave the ‘password’ and entered along with another officer, while two others remained outside. One of these had habitually brought detainees to the Penitentiary and was, therefore, known to the guards.

Once the order was confirmed at the cited phone number, the Warden handed over Silberman, drawing up a record signed by him and by Quinteros, who identified himself with his TIFA 245-03.

2.- Subsequently, it was confirmed that none of the gentlemen Ibáñez, Rodríguez, Quinteros, and Leyton belong to the Army, and the organization called ‘Military Advisory to War Tribunals’ is also non-existent (fs. 179), nor does TIFA 245-03 exist.

3.- The Telephone Company reported (fs. 36) that the number 516403 is vacant.

4.- It should be noted that the kidnappers were traveling in an Ika-Renault ambulance, without a license plate or disc, ‘of the type in service at DINA’ (numerous testimonies). The driver was the only one in civilian clothes.

5.- Both DINA (fs. 114) and the other security agencies denied any participation in the events.

6.- The detective in charge of the investigation order issued by the Prosecutor's Office went to the Chiloé Plant of the Telephone Company and verified:

a) that on October 3, the Chief Alejandro Olivos Olivos went to that plant, who, under the pretext of performing a test connection to Isla de Maipo, asked to enter the ‘Lightning Rod’ (the place where all connections are) and with a ‘curler’ did some work. To perform his test, he rejected—in energetic terms—any collaboration from workers.

b) that he was working on the panel where the phones from 516401 to 516449 are located, with traces found on 516403.

6.- The Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant against Olivos, who was detained at the exit of the Telephone Company with a briefcase that he asked not be opened because it contained confidential Government documents, which was respected.

7.- In his statement, Olivos expresses: that he indeed went to the Chiloé Plant in compliance with a confidential mission entrusted by the Company's Supervisor of Special Affairs, Major Marcos Derpich Miranda; that he gave the test to Isla de Maipo as a pretext; that he asked for the curler; that he rejected all help; that his mission consisted of provisionally enabling a phone to supply Avda.

Pedro Montt; that of the several vacant ones, he used—connected—the 516403 (sic); that he does not know the purpose of this special and confidential assignment.

He remained detained and incommunicado.

8.- The Prosecutor's Office ordered the summoning of only Major Derpich, who stated: ‘I was designated in the Company for special confidential work; I maintain daily contact with all Intelligence services of all branches of the Armed Forces; when they designated me for the position, I asked for a person of the most absolute trust for the material realization of them, and Mr.

Olivos was recommended, who to date has shown me great loyalty. But after his statements, I have lost confidence in him. I categorically deny having given him the instruction he alludes to. I have never given it to him.’

9.- A confrontation (fs. 111) is carried out in which each one maintains their statements, so the Prosecutor, unusually, leaves both in unconditional freedom. Olivos was detained between November 19 and 26, 1974.

10.- At fs. 134, DINA issues a report in which it states: ‘It has been definitively proven that Silberman, a communist militant, was taken from the Penitentiary by the “arch-enemy” of the P.C., the MIR, as is definitively demonstrated by the following elements: In a confrontation, the MIR member Claudio Rodríguez (Lautaro) died, and documents were found on him that allowed a raid on the house of the MIR member Alejandro de la Barra.

In his house, a TIFA was found with the name of Lieutenant Quinteros, with N° 245-03, but with the photo of Rodríguez (Lautaro). This proves that it was Lautaro, with false military identification in the name of Quinteros, who took Silberman from the Penitentiary.’

In addition, a Standard micro-telephone was found, which allows, according to the attached report by Engineer Vianel Valdivieso Cervantes, to connect to any phone, which proves that Rodríguez made the connection to confirm the order for Silberman's removal.

DINA points out to the Prosecutor that when TIFA 243-05, with Rodríguez's photo and Quinteros's name, was shown to the Warden, he denied that the person who took Silberman corresponds to the one in the TIFA photograph, which is why the Warden must be exhaustively investigated for being a cover-up for extremists.’

11.- With this report, the Prosecutor summons the Warden, who states: a) the photo is not that of the Quinteros who took Silberman. The composite sketch of Quinteros that is in the files made by my description corresponds correctly to Quinteros, and one can clearly appreciate the difference between that composite sketch and the one in the TIFA photo; b) the TIFA being shown is blue, from the old TIFA forms; the Quinteros TIFA that was shown to me when Silberman left is from the new officials, green in color; c) the photo of the TIFA being shown is in black and white; the one shown to me to take Silberman was in color, as the current ones are. Therefore, this TIFA does not correspond to the one shown to me on 4-10-74, nor is it the photo of Quinteros, whom I can recognize at any moment.”

12.- When all the other Prison officials who had already testified were summoned, all unanimous and without doubts in their statements, they expressed that the photo of Rodríguez in the TIFA provided by DINA is not that of the person who took Silberman. One of the guards even adds: ‘I asked the person who took Silberman for the password, and since he said it correctly, I let him in.’

13.- When Engineer Valdivieso was summoned, he stated that he would not appear before the Tribunal unless ordered by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, under whose orders he works, to which the Prosecutor ruled: ‘Leave without effect the summons to Vianel Valdivieso.’ (fs. 203)

14.- The undersigned presented numerous writings during the summary, and accompanied documents such as sworn statements from prisoners who claim to have been with Silberman in 3 Alamos and at the house on José Domingo Cañas at the corner of República de Israel.

None of the requested proceedings was ever accepted (except for an inconsequential one, to interrogate a journalist from La Tercera, who had expressed in a report that Silberman had been transferred to a prison in the south, and who declared before the Tribunal that it had only been a mere assumption of his).

15.- The summary was declared closed, and in a ruling of 23-8-76, the Prosecutor requests dismissal by virtue of N° 2 of art. 409 of the C.P.P., due to the fact that Silberman's kidnapping is proven, but not the author of it.

16.- In a sentence of 20-10-76, the Military Judge issues a temporary dismissal order, based on N° 1 of art. 409 of the C.P.P., since the crime is not proven, as Silberman could perfectly well have left of his own free will, and ‘all testimonies to the contrary come from people of the same political ideology as Silberman, so they cannot constitute proof.’

In my report, I added that not only during the summary, but even ‘since the case was dismissed, it was impossible, until the end of January (1977), to obtain access to the file, due to the strict secrecy that always surrounded it. Only in February did I manage to finish its study, with an express prohibition on taking copies or detailed notes, under the pretext that it is a War Time case.’

It was one of the most difficult and dramatic cases in which I had to intervene. An entire sinister criminal operation. For me, for several months, the key piece of information was the phone number, because the warden called that number and they answered.

The number was given to me and to Fernando Ostornol, a well-known lawyer very active in these cases, whom Pinochet later expelled from Chile after having held him prisoner and incommunicado for a long time, by the warden.

Both Fernando and I called 516403 thousands of times, at all hours of the day and night. And there was never an answer. Only in February 1977 did we find the explanation for what happened.

There were many other lies: Mariana Abarzúa, Silberman's wife, met with General Sergio Arellano, with the Minister and Undersecretary of Defense and the Minister of Justice, the aide to the Minister of the Interior, and many other authorities.

They all lied: “Your husband must have escaped,” replied the aide to the Minister of Justice, Commander Enzo Di Nocera García; “your husband will be released in the coming days,” the minister told her.

Meanwhile, the military vicar general, the Catholic bishop Francisco Javier Gillmore, who preferred to be addressed as general, informed her: the government ordered an investigation into this case and since the document that was shown is false, it means that her husband “was taken, surely by a group of officials from the previous government who wanted to return freedom to your husband and that is why his whereabouts are unknown.”

General/Bishop Gillmore did not answer to the cardinal. Only to “his” general. And “his” general also lied, as always. Helmuth Frentz—the Lutheran bishop who presided over the Comité Pro Paz—recounted that in an interview he held with Pinochet together with the co-president of the Committee, Bishop Fernando Ariztía, and the Chief Rabbi Ángel Kreiman, the latter raised the Silberman case, to which the dictator replied that he was taken from prison “by a MIR commando dressed as soldiers.”

In that same interview, and when asked about the disappeared former Spanish priest Antonio Llidó, Pinochet replied: “this gentleman is not a priest, he is a Marxist.” The only thing that remains clear from this historic interview is that Pinochet knew everything, absolutely everything, debunking another of the classic lies of civilian Pinochetism that Manuel Contreras deceived Pinochet.

Source: The Clinic, November 17, 2017

Date: 17-11-2017