On September 7, 1974, the architect Francisco Eduardo AEDO CARRASCO, apparently linked to the MIR, was detained at his home in Santiago by DINA agents.

On September 14, 1974, the draftsman and MIR militant Bernardo de CASTRO LOPEZ, who was politically linked to Francisco Aedo, was also detained at his home by DINA agents.

Both detainees were forcibly disappeared while in the custody of the DINA; Francisco Aedo was seen by witnesses at the José Domingo Cañas and Cuatro Alamos detention centers.

The Commission is convinced that the disappearance of both men was the work of State agents, who thereby violated their human rights.

Francisco Eduardo Aedo Carrasco, married, father of two, former academic at the University of Chile, architect, and member of the Socialist Party, was detained on September 7, 1974, at approximately 10:00 a.m., at his home on Avenida Palena.

The captors were DINA agents traveling in a light blue Chevrolet pickup truck without license plates. They asked for someone named Luis, and upon being told that no one by that name lived there, they asked for the victim.

They proceeded to raid the house, illegally seizing a blueprint for the expansion of the Military Hospital—on which he had collaborated as a structural calculator in 1971—and several Russian classical music records.

The man acting as the leader of the civilians told the other residents of the house—Francisco Aedo’s spouse, María Cristina González Benedetti; his mother-in-law, María Benedetti; and the housekeeper, Frida Gabatinni—that it was a "simple routine" procedure and that the victim would be back by 1:00 p.m.

He was forced into the pickup truck and taken to an unknown destination. It was the last time his family saw him. Through testimonies from former DINA detainees, it has been established that Francisco Aedo was held at the facility known as "Cuatro Alamos" until March 1975.

Mr. Carlos Ruiz Aranzáez, a former detective, was detained by the DINA on September 6, 1974, at the office of the Director General of Investigations. In his testimony, he states that he was immediately taken, blindfolded, to an interrogation and torture center whose location he did not know.

On September 7, he was transferred to 4 Alamos, where he remained until September 12, the date on which he was taken back to the first facility, only to be returned to 4 Alamos on the night of September 12.

Among the detainees he saw at the latter facility was Francisco Eduardo Aedo Carrasco, a man of about 60 years old, with whom he spoke at length, learning that he had also been held in Chacabuco during a previous detention.

Mr. Aedo was taken from his cell after about 4 days, approximately on September 20. He did not see him after that date. Mr. Mario Enrique Aguilera Salazar was detained by the DINA on August 12, 1974, and remained held at Londres 38, at the José Domingo Cañas facility, and at 4 Alamos.

He arrived at the latter place on August 24 and remained until September 16. There were other detainees there, among them Francisco Aedo, who was not in the large cell but in the smaller ones; he never saw him, but all the prisoners knew he was being held in that facility; he was the oldest among them.

Ms. Viviana Uribe Tamblay was detained by Investigations officers on September 13, 1974, and after remaining in that institution's facilities, she was transferred on September 14 to "Cuatro Alamos" along with her uncle, Carlos Sepúlveda López, and her sister, Mónica Uribe Tamblay, who had been detained with her.

At 4 Alamos, she was placed in Room No. 5 and her uncle in Room No. 6, where there were other prisoners, among whom she remembers Francisco Aedo. On the night of September 27, she was transferred along with her sister to the José Domingo Cañas facility, and the following day, she was taken to the Cuartel de Irán con los Plátanos, where she was tortured and subjected to all kinds of abuse.

On October 2 or 3, she was taken back to 4 Alamos, where she was assigned the same Room No. 5. In the neighboring room, No. 6, her uncle Carlos and Francisco Aedo remained detained. The following day, she was transferred to 3 Alamos.

Mr. Fernando del Carmen Vásquez Yáñez states in Francisco Aedo's respective judicial file that he was detained on August 10, 1974, in the city of Linares by military personnel belonging to the city's Artillery School, and was transferred that same day to Santiago, where he was held at 4 Alamos.

There, he was held incommunicado in a room with metal cots, a bunk bed for two people, with Francisco Aedo and Carlos Sepúlveda López. Francisco Aedo was an architect and left 4 Alamos before he did. When he was released—he spent 55 days at 4 Alamos—he called Francisco Aedo's house to express his gratitude, because while detained, Aedo had offered that his wife could provide him with money to return to Linares.

Aedo's wife told him not to move from where he was so she could speak with him. Through her, he learned that Aedo was still detained, and he gave her a pencil that the victim had given him as a gift. Finally, he adds in his statement that Aedo was taken out of the facility with other detainees on a day he does not remember.

Mr. Antonio Llorca Puig states in his testimony that he was detained by SIFA (Intelligence Service of the Chilean Air Force) personnel, under the command of Commander Ceballos Jones, on February 7, 1975, and was transferred to Villa Grimaldi and that same night held at 4 Alamos, where he remained until March 6.

In this last facility, occupying Room No. 7, the architect Francisco Aedo Carrasco was a prisoner; he occupied that cell alone. He saw him on the mornings of March 4, 5, and 6 during his first trip to the restrooms.

He apparently appeared to be in good health. Francisco Aedo had been detained previously, on September 13, 1973, remaining held for almost a year in various detention centers: the 14th Carabineros Precinct of La Florida, the National Stadium Detention Camp, and the Chacabuco Detention Camp, being released two months before his second detention.

His name appeared on a list of 119 Chileans killed abroad in alleged clashes between ultra-leftist groups or in combat with the Argentine Armed Forces. These lists were released by the magazines LEA in Argentina and O'DIA in Brazil, publications that issued only one number, without a responsible editor, and whose addresses as listed in the imprint turned out to be false.

The names on this list correspond to 119 people detained by Chilean security services who had disappeared following their detention. His family carried out countless efforts and inquiries in order to find his whereabouts, but none of them yielded any results, and they still do not know the fate he met at the hands of the DINA.

At the time of his abduction, he suffered from serious health problems that required periodic check-ups and the certain possibility of surgery. It should be noted that on April 17, 1974, the College of Architects awarded him a diploma in recognition of his 35 years in the profession with a distinguished career. To this date, the victim remains forcibly disappeared.

JUDICIAL AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Two writs of amparo were filed on his behalf before the Santiago Court of Appeals. In the first one, dated September 9, assigned roll number 1066-74, the Ministry of the Interior reported on September 27 that the person under protection was at liberty in compliance with Exempt Decree No. 236 issued by that Ministry.

Based on the merit of this report alone, which did not indicate the date of release, the place where he had been detained, the apprehending agency, much less the date the arrest was carried out, the Court rejected the writ of amparo even though, at the date of this resolution, October 4, the victim remained disappeared.

In the second writ, dated November 7, 1974, assigned roll number 1377-74, the petitioner submitted a response letter from the Chief of the Confidential Department of the Ministry of the Interior, in which he informed them that Francisco Aedo appeared in the card index as "released since the month of July 1974." Indeed, the person under protection was released from his first detention on July 30, 1974.

During the processing of the writ, negative reports were received from the Chief of the State of Siege Zone, General Sergio Arellano Stark, and from the Auditor of the Combat Command for Aviation Tribunals in Time of War.

Meanwhile, the Minister of the Interior, General Raúl Benavides Escobar, reported on November 20, 1974, that Francisco Aedo was at liberty. The Court again requested that the Secretariat of State specify on what date the person under protection had been released.

On December 9, that department responded that Francisco Aedo was released in compliance with Exempt Decree No. 236 dated July 24, 1974. With this background, fundamentally, the Court rejected the writ on December 18, while also dismissing the indication of Minister Paillás, who was of the opinion that the background information should be sent to the competent Criminal Judge in order to investigate the disappearance of the person under protection.

In October 1974, a complaint for alleged misfortune was filed before the 11th Criminal Court, roll 1.677, which was temporarily dismissed on May 23, 1975, and which was subsequently, in December 1975, added to case 11.371 of the 8th Criminal Court, a process that was in turn dismissed in August 1976.

On April 27, 1976, case 6085 was initiated in the 11th Criminal Court, originating from a presentation made by his family to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which they set forth the circumstances of the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Francisco Aedo.

In the respective investigation order carried out by the Investigative Police, the complainant Paulina Raquel Aedo Alarcón, daughter of the victim, was interviewed and ratified the terms of her complaint.

Ms. María Cristina González Benedetti, spouse of the victim and eyewitness to his detention, was also interviewed; she stated that on October 8, 1974, a peasant who did not identify himself gave her a pencil belonging to her husband, which she recognized immediately, telling her that he had seen him at 4 Alamos; a place she went to, but where they denied the detention.

In January 1977, the complainant submitted to the Court the sworn statement of Carlos Ruiz Aranzáes, the content of which has already been described. Likewise, Ms. María Cristina González appeared and gave a statement, ratifying her words to the Investigative Police, adding that she herself was detained on two occasions, the first time along with her spouse on September 12, 1973, and the second on October 8, 1973, being transferred to the National Stadium, where she saw her husband as a prisoner.

She also mentions that during her husband's last detention, one of the apprehending agents told her that he was "considered an ideologue." On March 25, 1977, the complainant requested that the Judge issue a request to the Secretary General of Government to report on the result of the investigation ordered by General Pinochet in relation to the "119" case.

On June 23, 1975, that Department reported that it possessed no information regarding Francisco Aedo. In September 1977, a criminal complaint for the crime of kidnapping and prolonged incommunicado detention was filed before this same Court, which was accepted for processing and added to the case.

Along with the complaint, a sworn statement provided by Mr. Antonio Llorca Puig, whose testimony has already been referred to, was presented. That same month, Ms. Frida Anna Bagattinni Celva, the housekeeper at the victim's home and an eyewitness to his detention, appeared and gave a statement in the case, ratifying the circumstances in which the events occurred.

Following an interview that the Military Judge of Santiago, Mr. Enrique Morel Donoso, gave to HOY magazine, in which he stated that the "119" case was clarified, saying that "...many have been located alive, and of others there is no information, and some were killed by the Argentine Armed Forces.

The fact has been proven by the documentation they carried when they fought," the plaintiff requested that the aforementioned General be requested to provide the background information in question. On December 19, the Military Judge responded that the victim does not appear as a defendant in that military jurisdiction.

On May 3, 1978, Judge Tomás Dahm Guíñez definitively dismissed the case by virtue of the Amnesty Decree Law of April 1978. That resolution was appealed by the injured party and, ultimately, on June 22, 1978, the Court rejected the dismissal order and returned the case to the summary stage.

In this new stage of the process, the Ministry of the Interior sent a copy of the respective Exempt Decrees confirming the detention and imprisonment at 4 Alamos of the witness Carlos Ruiz Aranzáes. And on April 4, 1979, the background information was sent to the Visiting Minister, Servando Jordán López, who was investigating the cases of forcibly disappeared persons in the Department of Santiago.

Orlando José Manzo Durán, who was the Chief of 4 Alamos, appeared before the Minister. Questioned by the Court, he said he did not remember a prisoner named Francisco Aedo Carrasco and did not recognize him in a photo shown to him.

He added that it is possible that the victim was in that facility, because sometimes the people who arrived were unrecognizable, or they could have had several days of detention in other intelligence services, such as the Air Force, Navy, and Carabineros.

In June 1979, General Enrique Morel responded to the Visiting Minister, in relation to his interview with HOY magazine, that the paragraph relative to the "119" case corresponds to a journalistic drafting by the interviewer, which does not faithfully translate what was stated by him on that occasion.

Finally, he adds that in relation to the "119," he does not possess more information than what appeared in the press. In December of that year, the witness Fernando del Carmen Vásquez Yáñez appeared and gave a statement in Court, setting forth the facts already described.

On December 12, 1979, the Minister declared himself incompetent to continue hearing the facts, as they fell under the jurisdiction of the Military Courts, and sent the files to the II Military Court. The military court accepted its jurisdiction and ordered the Second Military Prosecutor's Office to instruct case 21-80.

The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's appeal against Minister Jordán's resolution of incompetence. The Second Military Prosecutor's Office, at the request of the plaintiff, requested that the Ministry of the Interior send to the Prosecutor's Office the background information regarding the detentions of Carlos Sepúlveda López and Antonio Llorca Puig.

In June 1982, that Secretariat of State reported that the first of those named was detained on October 14, 1974, and released on November 17, 1976. Regarding the other person, it reported that he was detained on March 13, 1975, and was expelled from the country on July 26, 1975.

Without any other relevant action for the clarification of the facts, on September 28, 1982, the Military Judge totally and temporarily dismissed the case on the grounds that it was not sufficiently established in the files that the victim's disappearance was the consequence of the perpetration of a punishable act.

That resolution was confirmed by the Martial Court on March 20, 1984, thus rejecting the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal order. On October 18, 1989, the Military Public Prosecutor's Office, represented by Lieutenant Colonel Enrique Ibarra Chamorro, became a party to the process and requested the reopening of the case for the sole purpose of issuing a total and definitive dismissal order by virtue of the 1978 Amnesty Decree Law.

On October 30 of that year, the Military Judge reopened the case and issued a dismissal order as requested by the Military Public Prosecutor's Office. The plaintiff appealed that resolution, and the Martial Court revoked the resolution, ruling that the case should remain under temporary dismissal.

Source: Vicaría de la Solidaridad