The Concepción Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the investigation into the kidnapping of 29 people between September and November 1973, within the framework of the military dictatorship. Visiting Minister Carlos Aldana of the Concepción Court of Appeals issued a first-instance ruling in the investigation into the kidnappings of 29 people, which occurred in the towns of Quilaco and Santa Bárbara, Bío Bío Region, between September and November 1973.

The magistrate issued convictions against the individuals who participated in the aggravated kidnappings that occurred in Santa Bárbara of José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldini, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldini, José Gilberto Araneda, Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, José Guillermo Purrán Treca, José Domingo Godoy Acuña, Julio César Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Solís, José Nazario Godoy Acuña, Manuel Salamanca Mella, José Mariano Godoy Acuña, Miguel Cuevas Pincheira, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama, Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama, Elba Burgos Sáez, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz, Aliro Oporto Durán, and Sergio D'Apollonio Petermann. Meanwhile, the ruling also covers the kidnappings that occurred in Quilaco of Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, José Félido Pinto, Luis Alberto Cid, Luis Alberto Bastas Sandoval, Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, Gabriel José Viveros Flores, Segundo Marcial Soto Quejón, and José Roberto Molina Quezada. Those sentenced for the Santa Bárbara kidnappings are: Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez: 10 years and 1 day. Without benefits. Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán: 7 and a half years. Without benefits. José Jaime Godoy Godoy: 7 years. Without benefits. José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme: 7 years. Without benefits. Jorge Denis Domínguez Larenas: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. José Roberto Valdivia Dames: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. Luis Enrique Ricardo Barrrueto Barting: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. Manuel Dario Barrueto Barting: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. Pedro Segundo Ruiz Pardo: 541 days. The benefit of conditional remission was granted. Meanwhile, those convicted for the Quilaco kidnappings are: Eugenio Villa Urrutia: 7 years. Without benefits. José Eleodoro Burgos Sandoval: 7 years. Without benefits. Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán: 7 years. Without benefits. Carlos Santiago Sepúlveda Rivera: 7 years. Without benefits. José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz: 7 years. Without benefits. Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Barrera: 7 years. Without benefits. In addition, the civil lawsuit filed against the State was accepted, determining that 60 million pesos must be paid to Gretel del Carmen Godoy Acuña for the kidnapping of her brother Sebastián Campos Díaz; 80 million pesos to Jacinta Godoy Acuña for the kidnapping of her spouse Manuel Salamanca Mella, and 15 million pesos for the kidnapping of her brothers José Domingo, José Nazario, and José Mariano Godoy Acuña; 70 million pesos to Ana María D'Apollonio Zapata for the kidnapping of her father Sergio D'Apollonio Petermann; 70 million pesos to Ana María Zúñiga Beroiza for the kidnapping of her father José Zúñiga Aceldini, and 10 million pesos for the kidnapping of her uncle José Secundino Zuñiga Aceldini. Meanwhile, the convicted individuals must jointly pay 80 million pesos to Norma Panes Panes, spouse of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira, and 40 million pesos to Maritza Pilar, Fabiola del Carmen, Víctor Hugo, Dorian Inés, and Miguel Ángel Cuevas Panes (children of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira), as this family group did not file an action against the State.

Source: La Nación, June 15, 2011

Massive conviction for the aggravated kidnapping of 28 people in Santa Bárbara and Quilaco in 1973

Almost eleven years after the investigation began into the detention and disappearance of at least 28 people in the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, Bío Bío region, the special minister for human rights cases, Carlos Aldana, issued a first-instance ruling convicting a total of 17 people, including former uniformed officers and civilians.

The prison sentences established by Minister Aldana range from 10 years at the highest to 541 days at the lowest. Only in the latter case was the benefit of conditional remission of the sentence granted.

Santa Bárbara and Quilaco correspond to cases of human rights violations where there was close collaboration between Carabineros, military personnel, and civilians. Thus, in the case of Santa Bárbara, it was established that around September 19, 1973, the head of the local police station, Plante Euclides Aravena, formed the so-called "Voluntary Collaboration Force with the Carabineros of Chile," with the objective of "searching for extremists." Its first operation occurred on September 20, when the group of Carabineros and civilians proceeded to detain at least seven people at the "El Huache" estate, located 8 kilometers from the town and in the Los Junquillos sector. But these cases have a long history. On December 14, 2000, a complaint was filed with the Santa Bárbara Criminal Court, which was then in charge of Judge Waldemar Koch, who was appointed with preferential dedication as a result of the Dialogue Table that took place during the government of Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle. During his tenure, there were substantial advances in the cases, as Koch also took on the judicial actions filed for cases of forcibly disappeared persons from Quilaco. He already had a clear understanding of the facts and had identified those responsible, but he did not manage to issue indictments because on December 11, 2001, he left the position after having been appointed Judge of the Oral Court of Angol. Miguel Salgado then assumed the role of judge, who, by resolution of the Supreme Court on June 20, 2002, dedicated himself exclusively to the processing of human rights cases existing in his court. This allowed him to advance with greater speed, and thus on October 28, 2002, he ordered the arrest and indictment of nine people, four former Carabineros officials and five civilians, as responsible for the disappearance of 24 people in the commune of Santa Bárbara. Subsequently, and after the appointment of the minister of the Concepción Court of Appeals, Carlos Aldana Fuentes, as special minister for human rights cases, these proceedings—as well as others—passed into his hands. In that context, at the beginning of September 2005, Minister Aldana decreed a series of field procedures, including new statements and confrontations. The ruling Thus, finally, this Wednesday, June 15, Aldana issued a first-instance ruling against 17 people, including former uniformed officers and civilians, as responsible for the aggravated kidnapping of 28 people, which occurred in the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco after the military coup of September 11, 1973. The magistrate issued convictions against those who participated in the aggravated kidnappings of José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldini, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldini, José Gilberto Araneda, Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, José Guillermo Purrán Treca, José Domingo Godoy Acuña, Julio César Godoy Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Solís, José Nazario Godoy Acuña, Manuel Salamanca Mella, José Mariano Godoy Acuña, Miguel Cuevas Pincheira, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama, Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama, Elba Burgos Sáez, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz, Aliro Oporto Durán, Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann (all of which occurred in Santa Bárbara); and of Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, José Felidor Pinto, Luis Alberto Cid, Luis Alberto Bastas Sandoval, Raimundo Salazar Muñoz, Gabriel José Viveros Flores, Segundo Marcial Soto Quejón, and José Roberto Molina Quezada (which occurred in Quilaco). Those sentenced for the Santa Bárbara kidnappings are: -Planté Euclides Aravena Sáez: 10 years and 1 day. Without benefits. -Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán: 7 and a half years. Without benefits. -José Jaime Godoy Godoy: 7 years. Without benefits. -José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme: 7 years. Without benefits. -Jorge Denis Domínguez Larenas: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -José Roberto Valdivia Dames: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -Luis Enrique Ricardo Barrrueto Barting: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -Manuel Dario Barrueto Barting: 6 and a half years. Without benefits. -Pedro Segundo Ruiz Pardo: 541 days. The benefit of conditional remission was granted. Meanwhile, those convicted for the Quilaco kidnappings are: -Eugenio Villa Urrutia: 7 years. Without benefits. -José Eleodoro Burgos Sandoval: 7 years. Without benefits. -Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán: 7 years. Without benefits. -Carlos Santiago Sepúlveda Rivera: 7 years. Without benefits. -José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz: 7 years. Without benefits. -Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Barrera: 7 years. Without benefits. Likewise, the civil lawsuit filed against the State was accepted, determining that $60,000,000 (sixty million pesos) must be paid to Gretel del Carmen Godoy Acuña for the kidnapping of her brother Sebastián Campos Díaz; $80,000,000 (eighty million pesos) to Jacinta Godoy Acuña for the kidnapping of her spouse Manuel Salamanca Mella, and $15,000,000 (fifteen million pesos) for the kidnapping of her brothers José Domingo, José Nazario, and José Mariano Godoy Acuña; $70,000,000 (seventy million pesos) to Ana María D’Apollonio Zapata for the kidnapping of her father Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann; $70,000,000 (seventy million pesos) to Ana María Zúñiga Beroiza for the kidnapping of her father José Zúñiga Aceldini, and $10,000,000 (ten million pesos) for the kidnapping of her uncle José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldini. In addition, the convicted individuals must jointly pay $80,000,000 (eighty million pesos) to Norma Panes Panes (spouse of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira), and $40,000,000 (forty million pesos) to Maritza Pilar, Fabiola del Carmen, Víctor Hugo, Dorian Inés, and Miguel Ángel Cuevas Panes (children of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira), as this family group did not file an action against the State.

Source: AgenciadeNoticias.org, June 16, 2011

Court convicted former Carabineros and civilians for the disappearance of peasants in 1973

This involves six former police officers and 11 civilians, who received sentences between five years and one day to 14 years in prison. Most of the 28 disappeared persons had no political affiliation. The Concepción Court of Appeals convicted 17 individuals, six former Carabineros and 11 civilians, for the aggravated kidnapping (disappearance) of 28 peasants, which occurred between September and November 1973, after Pinochet's military coup.

According to judicial sources, special judge Raquel Lermanda issued sentences ranging from five years and one day to 14 years in prison. According to the judicial investigation, the convicted persons are former Carabineros agents and civilians from the towns of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, located in the Bío Bío Region.

The judge accused them of the kidnapping and subsequent disappearance of 28 farmers and peasants who lived in that area, among whom are also some leaders of Mapuche communities. Most of the disappeared had no political affiliation, but the repressors suspected they supported left-wing groups.

The magistrate accepted the demands of the prosecution and ordered the State and the convicted individuals to pay the victims' families compensation ranging from 15 million to 100 million pesos. The convictions Minister Lermanda issued the following sentences against: Planté Aravena Sáez: 14 years; José Jaime Godoy Godoy: 11 years; Héctor Isaías Echeverría Beltrán: 11 years; Jorge Domínguez Larenas: 10 years and one day; José Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme: 11 years; Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela: 10 years and one day; Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames: 10 years and one day; José Roberto Valdivia Dames: 10 years and one day; Luis Enrique Ricardo Antonio Barrueto Bartnning: 10 years and one day; Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartnning: 10 years and one day; José Segundo Ruiz Prado: 5 years and one day in prison; Eugenio Villa Urrutia: 10 years and one day; José Eleodoro Burgos Sandoval: 12 years; Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán: 10 years and one day; Carlos Antonio Sepúlveda Rivera: 11 years; José Feliciano Gutiérrez Ortiz: 10 years and one day; Exequiel del Carmen Celedón Rivera: 10 years and one day, and Sergio Alejandro Pino Cabeza: acquitted.

Source: Cooperativa.cl, May 10, 2013

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

The Second Chamber acted ex officio to overturn the appealed judgment in the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement judgment, convicted them as perpetrators for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings.

The Supreme Court accepted the filed appeals in cassation and issued a final judgment in the investigation into the aggravated 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 illicit acts were perpetrated in the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, respectively, between September and December 1973.

In a split decision (case file 24.143-2019), the Second Chamber of the high court—composed of ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Dahm, Leopoldo Llanos, and minister María Teresa Letelier—acted ex officio to overturn the appealed judgment, issued by the Court of Appeals of Concepción, in the part that considered the civilians as accomplices to the crimes and, in a replacement judgment, convicted them as perpetrators for having had direct participation in the detentions and kidnappings.

In the final judgment, the following were convicted as perpetrators of the crimes: Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez to a sentence of 14 years in prison; 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 denounced defect, it should be noted 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 aggravated 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 aggravated kidnapping of Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann, the second-instance judgment, in its 57th finding, referred to the functional theory of the act and analyzed the requirements of co-perpetration, 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 reach such a conclusion, the trial judges considered 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 work 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.

Therefore, what was acted and decided by said Carabineros officials, in terms of causing the disappearance of each of the detained victims to this day, is not an action over which these accused could have had control.

This factual circumstance is even recognized in the thirty-sixth finding of the first-instance judgment when, analyzing the participation of Planté Euclide Aravena Sáez, it mentions that ‘he organized a group of civilians to provide collaboration to the officials of his unit and that he had the most complete and absolute authority over these and the civilians under his command…’”

For the Criminal Chamber, in this case: “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 judgment, it is inferred that the accused 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 offense at hand.”

“Indeed,” it elaborates, “as stated in the sixty-sixth finding, the accused 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 reporting, 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, other people were detained—whom he lists—and that subsequently, upon realizing one was missing, they went with his brother and Carabineros to look for him in his truck. These admissions 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 seventy, 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 officials to his estate called ‘El Huachi,’ although he attributes this to a different purpose, acknowledging that 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 detention, he struggled with him and struck him on the head with a weapon. All these background facts are further complemented by the assertions of Julio Erices Cid on page 412, who pointed out that Manuel Barrueto was driving the 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 records.

Likewise, the high court reproduces “(…) the fifty-fourth finding, which states 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 site.

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 struck 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 armed with the Barrueto brothers during the detentions; by the testimony of José Aguilera on page 440, who points to him 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 states that he acknowledged having provided collaboration to the Carabineros of the Santa Bárbara station, having been 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 during the crime scene reconstruction 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 to him 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, which points to him 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 cannot be considered as mere cooperation—in the terms of Article 16 of the Penal Code—but must be classified as executive, as they demonstrate the performance of acts that constitute the unlawful confinement and detention of another, depriving them of liberty; that is, the acts that the law describes to define the crime of kidnapping, so their participation corresponds to that of direct perpetrators 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 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, as it is evident that if the cited provisions had been applied correctly, Luis Barrueto Bartning, Manuel Barrueto Bartning, Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela, and Jorge Domínguez Larenas would have been convicted as perpetrators of the crimes of aggravated kidnapping referred to in the preceding findings,” the ruling concludes.

The high court also addressed: “That, on the other hand, and notwithstanding the rejection of the appeal in cassation filed by the Program for the Continuation of Law 19.123, on page 9807, due to defects in its formalization, during the deliberation stage, it was noted that the second-instance judgment also revoked that of the lower court, by considering that the actions carried out by the accused Luis Barrueto Bartning and Manuel Barrueto Bartning in the crimes of aggravated 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 aggravated kidnapping of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira; the accused Sergio Fuentes Valenzuela in the crimes of aggravated 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 aggravated 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 aggravated 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 aggravated kidnapping of Cristino Cid Fuentealba and José Pinto Pinto, could only be considered as complicity, despite the fact that, as 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 officials in the unlawful 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 causing the trial judges to incur the ground for cassation in the 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 perpetrators 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 judge Raquel Lermanda established the following facts:

“1.- That on September 23, 1973, around 3:10 hours, while Sergio D'Apollonio Petermann was in his house located at the ‘La Palma’ smallholding, 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 transferred to an unknown location, from which moment all news of his whereabouts or existence remains unknown to this date.

2.- That on September 23, 1973, while Carlos Jacinto D'Apollonio Zapata was in his house located at the La Palma smallholding 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 transferring him to the bridge that connects 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 for a wake. Around 15:30 hours that same day, the same people who apprehended him, against the authorization of the family and without a legal administrative order, removed said body, apparently lifeless, and took it to an unknown destination.

3.- That around 14:30 hours on September 17, 1973, Elba Burgos Sáez was detained on Camilo Henríquez Street between Rosas and Manuel Rodríguez streets in Santa Bárbara by Carabineros officials, without a legal arrest warrant against her, and they were moving in a pickup truck onto which they loaded her, with all news of her whereabouts or existence remaining unknown since that date to this day.

4.- That, around 16:00 hours on November 7, 1973, while 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, being pursued by the police, one of whom shot him, managing to apprehend him, from which moment all news of his whereabouts or existence remains unknown.

5.- That, in the afternoon of September 17, 1973, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, and José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme voluntarily appeared at 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 regarding their whereabouts or destination remaining unknown since 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 way to Villacura, in the Santa Bárbara commune, by Carabineros personnel and civilians, without a legal detention order and without any 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 transferred to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station in charge of the Unit Chief, Lieutenant Planté Aravena Sáez.

On 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 transferred to the Quilaco bridge where the Carabineros shot them, with all news regarding the destination or whereabouts of Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao, Julio Rubio Llancao, José María Tranamil Pereira, and José Guillermo Purrán Treca remaining unknown since 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, transferring them to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, from where they were taken out at night to an unknown destination and have not been seen again or had news of their whereabouts to this date; b) That, after the above occurred and at approximately 14:00 hours 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 transferred to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station and from there, all trace of him was lost, without any news of his whereabouts to this date; c) That around 22:30 hours 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 La Feria Avenue 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 having been seen again or having 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 343 Rosas Street in the Santa Bárbara commune, where without a legitimate order they proceeded to detain José Mariano Godoy Acuña, who was transferred to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, where he was last seen without having been seen again or having 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 371 Rosas Street 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 transferring him to an unknown location without having been seen again or having news of his whereabouts to this date.

10.- That, around 16:30 hours on September 16, 1973, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz voluntarily appeared at the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, as he had been summoned previously, remaining detained without being shown a legitimate order and without having 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 place to an unknown destination, without having been seen again or having 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, leader of the Campo Lindo peasant settlement, located on the old Huinquén estate, whom they detained, taking him out of his house and carrying him in vehicles from that place, with the same group moving with him to an unknown destination, from which moment there was never any news or knowledge, his trace disappearing to this date; c) That after the above occurred, and being more or less noon on September 20, 1973, the same group went to the Loncopangue village 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 onto a Quilaco Municipality 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 apprehenders allegedly shot them with firearms, their bodies falling into the channel of the mentioned rivers, with their whereabouts remaining 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 since which there has been no news of his whereabouts; e) That, in the morning of November 3, 1973, at approximately 11:00 hours, 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; 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 transferring him to an unknown location without having returned or having news of his whereabouts to this date.”

Decision to act ex officio to overturn the judgment 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