The Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Santiago Court of Appeals that had applied the benefit of "half-prescription" (statute of limitations reduction) to the defendants. In its place, the Court confirmed the first-instance ruling that sentenced former Carabineros officer Sergio Heriberto Ávila Quiroga and former non-commissioned officer Hugo Ignacio Godoy Andías to 10 years and one day in prison for their responsibility in the qualified homicide of Rolando Juan Rodríguez Cordero and Mauricio Jean Carrasco Valdivia, who were executed in a staged confrontation on October 20, 1976, at the intersection of Calle Los Plátanos and Calle Las Dalias, in the commune of Macul, Santiago.

The victims, Rolando Juan Rodríguez Cordero, 31 years old at the time of the events, and Mauricio Jean Carrasco Valdivia, 25, were members of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) who were living in clandestinity, participating in the resistance struggle against the dictatorship.

On October 20, 1976, both went to meet a third party in the commune of Macul, in the area of Calle Los Plátanos and Calle Las Dalias. The contact was a student at the Escuela de Suboficiales de Carabineros de Chile who was to sell them a uniform from said institution and ammunition.

However, based on information gathered during the judicial investigation and provided by the contact himself, DIPOLCAR personnel handling the situation moved to the location to arrest them at the moment of the "supposed delivery."

DIPOLCAR personnel orchestrated a setup intended not only to arrest the victims but also to execute them, staging a false confrontation to justify their deaths. Before 7:00 PM that day, as Rodríguez Cordero and Carrasco Valdivia waited to carry out the meeting and transaction, DIPOLCAR officials approached them and fired immediately without any provocation.

Rolando Rodríguez Cordero was wounded by multiple gunshot wounds and later died at the Hospital de Carabineros; Mauricio Carrasco Valdivia died at the scene.

In a unanimous ruling (case file 18.876-2018), the Second Chamber of the high court—composed of ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Zepeda, and ad hoc attorneys Pía Tavolari and Carolina Coppo—accepted the cassation appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the sentence issued by the Santiago Court of Appeals, which had applied the "half-prescription" of the criminal action in this case, and rejected the cassation appeals also filed by the defense of the criminals.

The other convicted individual, former Carabineros non-commissioned officer José Luis Contreras Valenzuela, passed away during the proceedings, resulting in the dismissal of charges against him.

Regarding the improper application of "half-prescription" by trial and appellate court judges, the Supreme Court ruling states:

"Regarding this matter, it is convenient to keep in mind that in this case, we are facing an act that was classified as a crime against humanity, a concept that, with the passage of time, has given rise to norms of customary law—that is, general principles of law, regardless of their consecration in specific international treaties on the subject.

Thus, these are recognized as prohibited conduct in absolute terms, constituting imperative norms or ius cogens and, of course, mandatory for all of humanity; they correspond to norms of general international law, inexcusable and binding, which cannot be derogated except by a norm of the same entity," the Supreme Court maintains in the ruling.

"Likewise," it continues, "that international instrument establishes, in its Article 146, the commitment of its signatories to take all necessary legislative measures to set appropriate criminal sanctions to be applied to persons who commit, or order to be committed, any of the grave breaches defined in the Convention, as well as to search for such persons, having to bring them before their own courts and take the necessary measures to cease acts contrary to the provisions of the Agreement.

Article 147 describes what is understood by grave breaches, namely, among them, intentional homicide, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, illegal deportation or transfer, and unlawful confinement."

"Consequently, the State of Chile imposed upon itself, by signing and ratifying the aforementioned Conventions, the obligation to guarantee the safety of persons who may be involved in armed conflicts within its territory, especially if they are detained, prohibiting measures aimed at protecting grievances committed against specific persons or achieving impunity for their authors.

This is especially mindful that international agreements must be fulfilled in good faith and, insofar as the Pact seeks to guarantee the essential rights that arise from human nature, it has preeminent application, since this Court, in repeated rulings, has recognized that the internal sovereignty of the State of Chile recognizes its limit in the rights that emanate from human nature, values that are superior to any norm that the authorities of the State may provide, including the Constituent Power itself, which prevents them from being ignored and, even less, violated," it concludes.

Source: resumen.cl, July 3, 2021