On September 20, 1973, at various times, a group of agricultural laborers from the Fundo El Huache in the commune of Santa Bárbara were detained. The victims, all related to one another, were:

• Julio César Godoy Godoy, 52 years of age, who was detained at approximately 12:30 on that day at his workplace at Fundo El Huache; he was threatened with gunfire to intimidate him, then beaten and forced into one of the vehicles. His son, Segundo Godoy Godoy, was a witness to these events.

• Desiderio Aguilera Solís, 42 years of age, was detained immediately after his relative Julio César Godoy, at approximately 13:00, a short distance from the first, while he was working on the estate. The procedure was similar, in that members of the commando fired into the air, beat him, and forced him into one of the pickup trucks.

• José Domingo Godoy Acuña, 21 years old, who worked as a tractor driver at the settlement of the same estate. At 14:00, while he was eating lunch at his home located within the estate, a group of civilians and Carabineros arrived. In the presence of his mother, with whom he lived, they abused and violently beat him before forcing him into the vehicle in which they took him away. When his mother protested against what was happening, they beat her and shoved her into the kitchen of the home.

• José Nazario Godoy Acuña, 22 years old, also a worker at the estate. He was detained at 16:00 on the road from Santa Bárbara to Fundo El Huache while returning from town on a tractor from the same settlement, which was being driven by his nephew Alberto Aguilera Godoy—the son of Desiderio Aguilera Solís. The members of the commando stopped their vehicles in front of the tractor and forced him to get down. While he was doing so, they struck him in the forehead with the butt of a firearm, then tied his hands and forced him into one of the pickup trucks along with his nephew Alberto (who was released about three blocks from the site, after they stole the money he was carrying).

• José Mariano Godoy Acuña, 26 years of age, detained at 23:00 on the same day at the boarding house of Mrs. María Riquelme, located on Calle Rosas in Santa Bárbara, while he was lying in the room he occupied when staying in town. He was taken from the location by the Barrueto brothers, well-known farmers in the area and owners of Fundo El Huache, who took him immediately to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station (money and bank documents disappeared from his room).

• Manuel Salamanca Mella, 38 years old, was detained at his home located at Av. La Feria s/n in Santa Bárbara, at approximately 23:30. At that moment, the Barrueto brothers entered violently, with the Carabinero Heraldo Pulgar remaining at the door. Manuel Barrueto went to the bed where the victim was lying and struck him on the head with the butt of his weapon, causing various injuries. His spouse, Mrs. Jacinta Godoy Acuña, tried to prevent the violence unleashed against her husband, receiving a heavy blow from the butt of Manuel Barrueto's weapon for her efforts, a blow that caused her to lose consciousness, such that she did not know the moment they took her husband or in what direction. She later learned that he had been taken to the station that same night.

The group called itself the "Volunteer Collaboration Force with the Carabineros of Chile" and was created on September 19, 1973, by the Chief of the Santa Bárbara Precinct, Lieutenant Plante Euclides Aravena, "with the goal of searching for extremists in the El Huache sector," as the officer himself stated during the military justice proceedings.

The aforementioned estate had been expropriated from the father of the Barrueto brothers during the Agrarian Reform process carried out between 1970 and 1973. For this task, a commando was formed consisting of Carabineros Heraldo Pulgar Riquelme and José Godoy Godoy—both from the Santa Bárbara station staff—and civilians Jorge Domínguez, his son Jorge Domínguez Larenas, the brothers Manuel and Ricardo Barrueto—owners of Fundo El Huache—Simón Mena Manosalva (later an official of the Social Security Service in the town of Santa Bárbara), Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela, and Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dahme. Wearing field uniforms similar to those of the Army and carrying various types of weapons, they carried out an operation at Fundo El Huache and in Santa Bárbara. The members of this force moved in a light green pickup truck belonging to Manuel Barrueto, a yellow one belonging to José Domínguez (the father), and a third green and yellow one, property of the Santa Bárbara Municipality.

Additionally, during the operation carried out that day, Jovino Aguilera Solís, Taco Verdugo Salamanca, and Emiliano Aguilera Godoy were detained; they were released on September 21 by their captors after one day of captivity, while the rest of the detainees remained at the police facility.

According to witness statements before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the detainees were likely executed that same night and thrown into the waters of the Bío Bío River from the bridge that crosses Quilaco. However, neither their deaths nor their detentions have ever been officially acknowledged, and the 6 peasants remain forcibly disappeared to this day.

Judicial and/or Administrative Actions

On May 27, 1975, a writ of amparo (habeas corpus) was filed before the Concepción Court of Appeals, case file 3443, on behalf of Julio César Godoy, Desiderio Aguilera Solís, Domingo Godoy Acuña, Nazario Godoy Acuña, Mariano Godoy Acuña, and Manuel Salamanca Mella.

A collective writ of amparo was filed, taking into account the family relationship of the victims and the connection of the repressive situation.

The Court declared the writ filed on May 28, 1975, and also requested reports from various regional authorities.

On June 2, 1975, the Santa Bárbara Precinct informed the Court that it had no record of the detentions of the individuals for whom the amparo was filed.

By June 11, and with the Regional Intendant still having not reported, the Court ordered the request to be reiterated. This situation had to be repeated again on June 21, 1975.

On July 1, the Brigadier General and Intendant of the VIII Region, Nilo Floddy Buxton, replied that the detention of the persons in question was not ordered by him, adding that he had no information regarding the reported situation.

On July 5, 1975, the Undersecretary of the Interior, Enrique Montero Marx, reported having no information regarding the detentions reported in the amparo case file 3443.

On July 8, 1975, the Court, based on the information received, considered that the detention of the victims was not proven; therefore, the amparo was rejected, and the Court issued an order to the duty Criminal Judge to initiate a summary investigation into the alleged disappearance of the agricultural laborers of Fundo El Huache.

This resolution was appealed on July 9, and the records were elevated to the Supreme Court, which ordered the Bío Bío Military Prosecutor's Office to remit case file 25-73, filed against Ricardo Barrueto and others, initiated due to the disappearance of the victims and illegal possession of weapons.

On July 21, 1975, having the records in view, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed resolution of the Concepción Court of Appeals.

In the 2nd Criminal Court, an investigation was initiated into the alleged disappearance of the victims, case file 16.878. On March 15, 1976, the Judge declared himself incompetent and sent the records to the Military Prosecutor's Office of Los Angeles.

On January 3, 1975, by resolution of the Military Judge of the III Army Division, it was ordered that case file 25-73 be investigated at the Military Prosecutor's Office of Los Angeles against Ricardo Barrueto Bartning, Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning, Sergio Amado Fuentes Valenzuela, and Jorge Eduardo Valdivia Dames, for their responsibility in the disappearance of the victims and, furthermore, for being accused of infringing Law No. 17.798 on arms control.

Carabinero Major Aroldo Solari reported during the proceedings that Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning "as of September 19, 1973, became part of the Volunteer Collaboration Force with the Carabineros of Chile, and therefore carries weapons." Additionally, the Garrison Commander reported on the weapons registered in the names of Manuel and Ricardo Barrueto.

The Prosecutor convened a War Council to judge the accused.

On February 12, 1976, Ricardo Barrueto, Manuel Barrueto, Jorge Valdivia, and Sergio Fuentes were declared guilty of the crime of carrying firearms without a competent permit.

It was also established that the Chief of the Santa Bárbara Precinct, Lieutenant Plante Euclides Aravena Sáez, effectively organized a patrol formed by 2nd Sergeant Mario Sáez, Corporal Daniel Torres González, and Carabineros José Godoy Godoy, Heraldo Sáez Alvarez, and Hugo Sepúlveda Alvarez, together with the aforementioned civilians—all processed for forming said group.

Therefore, as they were requested to collaborate by a police authority, they were exempt from criminal responsibility.

The Military Tribunal did not accept the request to reduce the responsibilities of the accused based on their clean records, as it deemed their moral conduct reprehensible. For the reasons stated and other evidence in the case, the War Council sentenced the defendant Luis Enrique Ricardo Antonio Barrueto Bartning to the penalty of one hundred and eighty days of minor imprisonment.

And the defendant Manuel Darío Barrueto Bartning to the penalty of sixty-one days of minor imprisonment in its minimum degree.

Regarding the defendants Valdivia and Fuentes, although they acknowledged in the tribunal that they did not have permits to carry weapons, they stated that they did so in response to Lieutenant Aravena's call to collaborate with the Carabineros in the "select group of citizens of that locality." Furthermore, the Lieutenant himself affirmed that the civilians carried weapons with his authorization, under his command, and organized according to superior instructions.

The ruling of the Military Justice indicates that they must be acquitted, as the participation they had "lacks any criminal intent."

On May 18, 1979, the Commander-in-Chief of the III Army Division, Brigadier General Rigoberto Rubio Ramírez, Judge of the III Military Court, permanently dismissed the charges against the aforementioned defendants in case file 25-73.

It is important to mention that the origin of the case, both in civil and military justice, was the disappearance of the victims; however, the Military Justice in its ruling made no mention of the responsibility of the accused for this situation.

A completely irregular situation is occurring in the commune of Curacautín, in La Araucanía, specifically at the Collico school, where the municipality retains a criminal convicted of crimes against humanity as director.

This is Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán, a civilian convicted for his participation in the disappearance of 28 peasants in Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, in the foothills of the Biobío, between September and December 1973.

Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán is the name of the criminal convicted of crimes against humanity who works as the teacher in charge of the rural Collico school in Curacautín. The offender was convicted, along with four Carabineros and nine civilians, as the perpetrator of the kidnapping and disappearance of 28 peasants in Quilaco and Santa Bárbara, in what constitutes one of the most brutal crimes of the dictatorship.

Burgos Belauzarán was sentenced to four years of major imprisonment in its minimum degree, with the accessory penalties of absolute perpetual disqualification for public offices and political rights, and absolute disqualification for professional practice for the duration of the sentence.

However, he currently appears as the teacher in charge of the rural Collico school, with a salary of more than $2 million. He has held the position since at least 2016.

Due to the gravity of this situation, not only because of its illegality but because of what a conviction for crimes against humanity entails, the DAEM (Municipal Education Administration Department) of Curacautín and the Regional Ministerial Secretariat (Seremi) of Education in La Araucanía were contacted.

Both avoided assuming responsibility and announced that the situation is in the hands of a legal team "to reach a resolution."

The municipal education department stated that "the Supreme Court has not yet informed us, and in the current collection of background information, the disqualification appeared, and that is why the information was raised to the lawyers. I had no idea; I have been in the position for almost a year and I am not from Curacautín either."

Patricio Aguilera, director of the DAEM, noted that this rural school is currently in recess, but Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán appears to have earned a salary in March 2023 of more than $2 million. In this regard, Aguilera replied that "he is on medical leave, and the leave is paid by the Isapre (health insurance).

We have now sent the background information to the legal advisors; when we received the certificate of disqualification, we immediately referred it to our lawyers."

When asked about why a human rights violator remains in charge of a school, the Seremi of Education of La Araucanía, María Isabel Mariñanco, limited herself to blaming the sponsor (the municipality), avoiding referring to any possible measures.

"In the administrative sphere of the management of educational establishments, the hiring of personnel is the responsibility of the sponsor, which in this case corresponds to the municipality. As the Ministry of Education, we call on municipalities and the local public education service, in their capacity as sponsors, to provide greater rigor to the processes of reviewing the backgrounds of those who perform work in educational establishments."

For now, the criminal convicted of crimes against humanity, Juan Carlos Burgos Belauzarán, is on medical leave, and according to the DAEM, they are "waiting" for the legal team's review to finalize his dismissal. For the time being, he continues to appear as the teacher in charge of the Collico school.

Below, we describe the events in which Burgos Belauzarán participated directly as a perpetrator, committed in Santa Bárbara and Quilaco between September and December 1973:

The judicial investigation establishes in detail the various criminal episodes carried out by the uniformed personnel and civilians who executed true extermination raids.

Thus, on September 13, 1973, a group of civilians and Carabineros, all armed with firearms and traveling in motorized vehicles, arrived at the home of Cristino Humberto Cid Fuentealba, located at the El Rodal plot on the outskirts of Quilaco, proceeding to detain him in the presence of his relatives, only to take him away walking from that place to an unknown destination, making him disappear to this day.

On September 14, 1973, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama and Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama were kidnapped from their home located in a hut on the Corcovado estate, on the road to Villacura in the commune of Santa Bárbara, by Carabineros and civilians, and their fate remains unknown to this day.

On September 16, 1973, Juan de Dios Rubio Llancao and Julio Alberto Rubio Llancao were detained and taken to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros Precinct under the charge of the Unit Chief, the then-Lieutenant Planté Aravena Sáez.

On the same day, Guillermo Purrán Treca went to the indicated police unit seeking protection because he could not return to his home, as he had missed the bus and the start of the curfew was approaching, but they left him there as a detainee.

At night, these three peasants, plus José María Tranamil Pereira who had also been detained, were taken out of the police facility and transported to the Quilaco bridge, where the Carabineros riddled them with bullets, and no news of the four peasants has been known since that date.

On September 16, 1973, Sebastián Hernaldo Campos Díaz voluntarily presented himself to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros Precinct, as he had been summoned previously, and remained detained; no news of his whereabouts has been known to this day.

At noon on September 17, 1973, Elba Burgos Sáez was detained by Carabineros on a public street in the city of Santa Bárbara; she was forced into a pickup truck and taken to an unknown destination, and no news of her whereabouts or existence has been known since that date.

On the afternoon of September 17, 1973, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, and José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme voluntarily went to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros Precinct, complying with a summons that Carabineros of the aforementioned police unit had made to them through a third party, and were entered into said facility as detainees; no news of their whereabouts or fate has been known since that date.

In the commune of Quilaco, in the early hours of September 20, 1973, a group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at the home of José Felidor Pinto Pinto, a leader of the Campo Lindo peasant settlement located on the old Huinquén estate, whom they detained, taking him from his house and carrying him away to an unknown destination in vehicles, from which moment nothing more was heard of his fate, his trail disappearing to this day.

In the morning hours of September 20, 1973, in the commune of Santa Bárbara, the group of executioners 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, transporting them to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros Precinct, from where they were taken out at night to an unknown destination, and they have not been seen again nor has there been any news of their whereabouts to this day.

Around noon that day, the same group headed 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, who were loaded onto a truck belonging to the Municipality of Quilaco 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, guarded by their captors, were led walking to the banks of the indicated watercourses, at which moment their captors allegedly fired at them with firearms, their bodies falling into the channel of the aforementioned rivers, their real whereabouts remaining unknown to this day. Also that same day, in the afternoon, the local resident Segundo Marcial Soto Quijón was detained in Quilaco by a group made up of Carabineros and civilians, a date from which they made him disappear.

In the commune of Santa Bárbara, at approximately 14:00 on the same day, September 20, the criminal group detained José Nazario Godoy Acuña in the Los Junquillos sector, who was subsequently taken to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros Precinct.

Around 22:30 on September 20, 1973, in the commune of Santa Bárbara, they arrived at the home of Manuel Salamanca Mella, located on Avenida La Feria without number in Santa Bárbara, where they detained him in the presence of his relatives, to then take him to the Carabineros Precinct.

On the same date, the same group went to the boarding house located at Calle Rosas No. 343 in the commune of Santa Bárbara, where they detained José Mariano Godoy Acuña, who was taken to the Precinct where they were last seen, and they have not been seen again nor has there been any news of their whereabouts to this day.

On the night of September 20, 1973, the same armed group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at the home of Miguel Cuevas Pincheira located at Calle Rosas No. 371 in Santa Bárbara and detained him in the presence of his relatives, spouse, and children, taking him from his house and transporting him to an unknown place, and he has not been seen again nor has there been any news of his whereabouts to this day.

On September 23, 1973, in the early hours of the morning, the group of executioners broke into the La Palma smallholding in the commune of Santa Bárbara to kidnap the peasants Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann, 48 years of age, and his son Carlos Jacinto D’Apollonio Zapata, 22 years of age, from their home.

They took Carlos Jacinto to the bridge that connects the communes of Santa Bárbara and Quilaco, over the Bío Bío River, where they placed him on one of the railings and fired at him with firearms, causing him to fall into the riverbed.

However, the current dragged his body to one of the banks, where his body was found by relatives and acquaintances the following morning. They took the corpse to his home and proceeded to hold a wake to then bury him, but in the afternoon of that day, the same individuals who had kidnapped him the night before broke in to steal the young man's body and took it away to make it disappear to the present day.

On the morning of November 3, 1973, at approximately 11:00, the group of Carabineros and civilians arrived at Plot No. 112 in the Piñiquihue sector of the commune of Quilaco, where they detained José Roberto Molina Quezada, took him from his house, and took him away in a vehicle to an unknown destination, from which moment nothing more was heard or known of his whereabouts.

On the night of Saturday, November 3, they 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 from his house and taking him away to an unknown destination.

Around 16:00 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, Carabinero personnel arrived to detain him, but the young man ran in the direction 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 is unknown.

by Juan Contreras Jara

Source: resumen.cl, May 10, 2023

Date: 10-05-2023

Supreme Court convicted Carabineros (r) and civilians for kidnappings in Biobío in 1973 (excerpt)

The Second Chamber overturned the appealed judgment on its own motion regarding the portion 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 arrests 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 highest court—composed of ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Dahm, Leopoldo Llanos, and minister María Teresa Letelier—overturned the appealed judgment, issued by the Court of Appeals of Concepción, on its own motion regarding the portion 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 arrests and kidnappings.

In the final judgment, the following individuals 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 6 years 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 alleged defect, it should be kept in mind 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 estimated that although the defendants collaborated with the arrest of each of the victims, ‘the control of the kidnapping act always remained with the police officers, since the collaborative actions of these subjects lasted only until the detainees were in the hands of the public official, police authority, or at the police station or precinct 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 consideration 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 them and the civilians under his command…’”

For the Penal Chamber, in this instance: “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 defendants 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 type at hand.”

“Indeed,” it elaborates, “as stated in the sixty-sixth finding, the defendant 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 persons.

He added that upon presenting himself, they left for the El Huachi estate in two vehicles, one of which was a pickup truck owned by him, which he was driving. He added that together with his brother Manuel, they collaborated in the identification of several people, who were arrested by Carabineros, loaded into the vehicles, and transported.

He stated that on the way, they arrested other people—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. Such 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 arrested 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 arrest, he struggled with him and struck him on the head with a weapon. All these antecedents 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 highest 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 location.

However, the above was refuted by the testimony of José Aguilera Godoy, who identified him as the person who arrested 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 arrested 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 arrests; by the testimony of José Aguilera on page 440, who points to him as one of the civilians who intervened in the arrest 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 arrest.”

“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, said exculpation was refuted by the statements of Juana D’Apollonio, who, in the scene reconstruction proceeding, identified him as one of the subjects who entered her house, arresting her relatives, also corroborated 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 arrest of her husband.”

For the Penal 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 confinement and arrest of another, without legal right, depriving them of liberty, that is, of the facts that the law describes to typify 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 performing acts of aid 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, since 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 highest court also addressed: “That, on the other hand, and notwithstanding the rejection of the appeal in cassation filed by the Law 19.123 Continuation Program, 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 estimating 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 Belauzarán 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, notwithstanding 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 illegal arrest 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 incurring the trial judges in the ground for cassation in the substance contemplated in Article 546 N°1 of the Code of Penal 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 on its own motion, since it is permitted only when the appeal has been rejected due to defects of formalization, as provided by Article 785 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” it concludes.

Executions and disappearances

In the first-instance ruling, the visiting minister Raquel Lermanda established the following facts: “1.- That on September 23, 1973, around 3:10 hours, under circumstances where Sergio D’Apollonio Petermann was in his house located at the ‘La Palma’ smallholding, commune of Santa Bárbara, a group mobilized with 4 to 5 Carabineros and civilians arrived, proceeding to arrest 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 is unknown to this date. 2.- That on September 23, 1973, under circumstances where Carlos Jacinto D’Apollonio Zapata was in his house located at the La Palma smallholding in the commune of Santa Bárbara, a mobilized group of approximately 4 or 5 people arrived, among whom were Carabineros and civilians, proceeding to arrest 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 to be waked. Around 15:30 hours that same day, the same people who apprehended him, and against the authorization of the family and without a legal administrative order, removed said body, apparently lifeless, and took it away to an unknown destination. 3.- That around 14:30 hours on September 17, 1973, Elba Burgos Sáez was arrested on Camilo Henríquez Street between Rosas and Manuel Rodríguez streets in Santa Bárbara by Carabineros officials, without a legal arrest order existing against her, and who were traveling in a pickup truck into which they loaded her, with all news of her whereabouts or existence being unknown from that date to this date. 4.- That, around 16:00 hours on November 7, 1973, under circumstances where 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 arrest 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 is unknown. 5.- That, in the afternoon of September 17, 1973, José Rafael Zúñiga Aceldine, José Secundino Zúñiga Aceldine, and José Gilberto Araneda Riquelme voluntarily went to 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 being unknown from that date. 6.- That, on September 14, 1973, Juan de Dios Fuentes Lizama and Juan Francisco Fuentes Lizama were arrested in their home located in a hut on the Corcovado estate, on the road to Villacura, in the commune of Santa Bárbara, by Carabineros personnel and civilians, without a legal arrest order existing 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 arrested and transferred to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station in charge of the Unit Chief, Lieutenant Planté Aravena Sáez. The same day, Guillermo Purrán Treca resorted to the indicated police unit in search of protection because he could not return to his home, as he had missed the bus 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 being unknown from that date. 8.- a) That, in the morning of September 20, 1973, in the commune of Santa Bárbara, a group of Carabineros and civilians, armed with firearms, who were traveling in motorized vehicles and without having a legitimate order, arrived at the ‘El Huachi’ estate, located 8 kilometers from that commune, and arrested 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, arrested José Nazario Godoy Acuña in the Los Junquillos sector of the commune of Santa Bárbara, 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 commune of Santa Bárbara, a group of Carabineros and civilians, armed with firearms who were traveling in motorized vehicles and without having a legitimate order, arrived at the home of Manuel Salamanca Mella, located on Avenida La Feria without number in Santa Bárbara, where they proceeded to arrest him in the presence of his relatives, to then take him to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, where he was seen for the last time, 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 Calle Rosas N° 343 of the commune of Santa Bárbara, where, without a legitimate order, they proceeded to arrest José Mariano Godoy Acuña, who was transferred to the Santa Bárbara Carabineros station, where he was seen for the last time without having been seen again or having news of his whereabouts to this date.” "EXTRACT"