On October 19, 1973, they were executed by sentence of the Consejo de Guerra (War Council) Roll No. 11 73 of the Wartime Military Prosecutor's Office, accused of attempting to assault the Carabineros station in Fresia and assaulting the Carabineros outpost in Neltume on September 12, 1973:

-Oscar ARISMENDI MEDINA, 46 years old, agricultural worker, leader of the Peasant Union of the El Toro settlement and a socialist militant;

-Francisco del Carmen AVENDAÑO BORQUEZ, 20 years old, normal school teacher and militant of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR);

-José Antonio BARRIA BARRIA, 23 years old, agricultural worker, militant of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR);

-José Mario CARCAMO GARAY, 26 years old, agricultural technician, militant of the MIR;

-José Luis FELMER KLENNER, 20 years old, employee, agronomy student, militant of the MIR; and

-Mario César TORRES VELASQUEZ, 32 years old, linotypist.

This Commission had access to the case file after requesting it from the relevant Fuerza Aérea (Air Force) authorities. Additionally, a copy of the sentence from said Consejo de Guerra was obtained from another source, which contains a summary of the proceedings in its considerations and operative part.

After analyzing it, in conjunction with a series of other background information and testimonies received, the Commission has reached the conviction that those executed were victims of a human rights violation committed by State agents, specifically regarding the right to life and to due process.

This conviction is supported by the background information common to all war trials of the period, which has been set forth in the general part of the Report, and the following specific considerations:

-The defense attorney for the accused testified that, in his view, he could not develop an adequate defense, as he did not have time to do so and was unable to interview the accused;

-The crime for which they were ultimately sentenced to death is that of Article 248 No. 2 of the Code of Military Justice, which sanctions "anyone who, in case of war and with the purpose of favoring the enemy or harming Chilean troops, commits an action or omission that is not included in the preceding articles nor constitutes another crime expressly punished by law." This crime falls under exclusive military jurisdiction and can only be committed by military personnel in a situation of external war and committed "with the object of favoring the enemy or harming Chilean troops," for which reason the tribunal was not competent to judge civilians, especially when there was no external war.

-From the study of the case file, it is determined that some of the accused were not aware of the alleged illicit activities they were charged with. Furthermore, they indicated in the case that they were at the location for reasons of personal safety, due to their political militancy.

-In the sentence reviewed, there is no reference to evidentiary means other than the mere confessions of the accused, such as cross-examinations, expert reports, or documents, some of which were obtained but not weighed.

-Two aggravating circumstances were applied to the accused: having committed the crime during a popular commotion, a circumstance that was credited in the process given the "public notoriety and the situation through which the Republic is passing"; and executing the crime with contempt or offense to public authority, "since the disobedience of the Edicts of the Junta Militar de Gobierno and the Zonal Headquarters in the State of Emergency of Llanquihue and Chiloé signifies precisely a repeated contempt, a mockery, and a disdain for the authorities who issued them." However, no mitigating circumstances were weighed for the accused, rejecting the defense's argument that the mitigating circumstance of irreproachable prior conduct favored the defendants, stating verbatim in the ruling that "it is not proven in the records and furthermore because from the very context of the defense of the accused it is clear that they had been forming an armed group from June 1973 until the date of their arrest, as the defense itself acknowledges, and consequently they were committing crimes repeatedly, which precludes any good prior conduct";

-The condemned were held in incommunicado detention and were unable to meet with their lawyer;

-Finally, the mistreatment of the prisoners invalidates any confession they may have provided, as it deprives their statements of freedom and voluntariness.