Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares, married, father of one daughter, a veterinarian and member of the MIR, was detained on July 15, 1974, around 8:00 PM, at his home on Calle Antonio Varas by agents of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), led by Osvaldo Romo Mena and traveling in several vehicles, including Chevrolet C 10 pickup trucks.

Hours earlier, around 3:00 PM that same day, María Inés Alvarado Börgel (forcibly disappeared) had been detained on a public street, also by DINA agents, in the presence of Verónica Martínez Ahumada, Juan Rosendo Chacón's spouse.

Verónica managed to slip away and head to their home on Calle Antonio Varas, where she informed her husband's cousin, Antonio Osorio Olivares, who was there at the time, of what had happened. According to the latter's statements, from that moment on, an intense deployment of individuals who appeared to be security agents was observed around the building.

Around 5:30 PM, about 10 individuals, including Osvaldo Romo, appeared at the apartment, identifying themselves as DINA officials. They were armed and brought María Inés Alvarado with them; she looked very frightened and was bleeding from her upper lip.

After confirming the address, they proceeded to take her away, while other agents raided the property. At 7:00 PM, Raúl Chacón Zenteno (the victim's father) arrived, and half an hour later, Martín Elgueta arrived. At 8:00 PM, Juan Rosendo appeared.

All of them were detained. Raúl Chacón Zenteno, Verónica Martínez, and Antonio Osorio would later be released; the victim, Martín Elgueta, and María Inés Alvarado remain forcibly disappeared to this day.

The group was taken to the secret political imprisonment and torture center of the DINA known as Londres 38, where the victim and his family (Verónica Martínez, Raúl Chacón, and Antonio Osorio) remained for five days.

During that time, they were not allowed to remove their blindfolds and were continuously interrogated and whipped. Juan Rosendo, as declared by various witnesses, was tortured through the application of electric shocks.

On one occasion, the victim himself informed Antonio Osorio that his tongue had been broken during interrogation. Verónica Martínez had to massage his back to soothe the pain caused by the electric shocks applied to his brain and temples, while Juan Rosendo said that the torture he was being subjected to was unbearable.

After 5 days, Juan Rosendo Chacón, his father Raúl Chacón, his wife Verónica Martínez, and his cousin Antonio Osorio were transferred to Cuatro Alamos, having previously signed a document stating that they had not suffered mistreatment and had been well cared for.

The transfer was carried out in a closed truck, and at that facility, the victim was placed in the same cell as his father. Days later, everyone was granted their freedom, except for Juan Rosendo, who remained at Cuatro Alamos, from where he disappeared.

Raúl Chacón Zenteno, after being released, went with his wife to drop off clothing for his son. However, his son's name no longer appeared on the lists of detainees.

The week following Juan Rosendo Chacón's detention, on July 22, 1975, his mother, María Cristina Olivares, and his mother-in-law, Ana Ahumada Moraga, went to the victim's apartment, only to find the property occupied by 10 DINA agents, including Osvaldo Romo. Both women were detained at that moment and taken by their captors to the Londres 38 facility, being released the following day.

For her part, Verónica Martínez Ahumada, days after being released, went to her apartment to see what had happened. Upon entering, she realized that her home had been looted: all the clothing belonging to her husband, herself, and her daughter had been stolen; the beds were left without even their mattresses; gold rings, bracelets, necklaces, rugs, a radio, and other household goods had disappeared; all of her husband's work materials, diplomas, and documents were scattered on the floor and torn to shreds; whatever had not been taken was completely destroyed.

One year after these events, in July 1975, the victim's name appeared on a list of 119 Chileans who had allegedly died in a confrontation in Argentina. The veracity of this fact has never been proven; furthermore, no government, not even the Chilean one, officially ratified it.

The victim's name appeared in the magazine "Lea" in Buenos Aires, in a single edition, without an address and without a responsible editor.

Subsequently, his spouse had to go into exile; her safety was at risk, so she and her daughter left the country.

JUDICIAL AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

On July 25, 1974, a writ of amparo (habeas corpus) was filed for Juan Rosendo Chacón, Verónica Martínez, and Antonio Osorio at the Santiago Court of Appeals, registered under No. 803-74. During its long processing, the Ministry of the Interior acknowledged the detention of the victim, who had allegedly been released, according to official reports, on August 7, 1974, by virtue of Exempt Decree No. 274.

However, the Division General and Minister of the Interior, Raúl Benavides Escobar, initially responded to a court order on December 12, 1974, that "Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares is not being held by order of this Ministry." Months later, on April 2, 1975, the same Minister Benavides, in another response addressed to the same Court, stated that "by Exempt Decree No. 248 of this Ministry, Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares is in the Cuatro Alamos Detention Camp.

Subsequently, and by virtue of the provisions of Exempt Decree No. 274, also from the Interior, he was released."

Despite the evident contradiction between both official statements provided by the same authority, the appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeals on April 7, 1975.

On December 17, 1974, a complaint for the alleged disappearance of Juan Rosendo Chacón was filed in the 1st Criminal Court of San Miguel, registered under No. 41730-5. During its processing, and responding to a court order to investigate, the Investigations Service, San Miguel Precinct, reported on January 22, 1975, that "having consulted the National Executive Secretariat for Detainees (SENDET), they stated that Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares has been detained in the Tres Alamos Prisoner Camp since July 15, 1974."

Without further proceedings, on February 4, 1975, the summary was closed and the case was temporarily dismissed. On July 24 of the same year, a criminal complaint was filed for the crime of kidnapping of Juan Chacón.

On this occasion, the Judge declared himself incompetent and referred the case files to the 7th Criminal Court of Santiago, where case file No. 77.237-2 was opened. The Investigations Service also reported that, upon consulting SENDET, it was established that the victim "was released on August 7, 1974, by virtue of Exempt Decree No. 274 of the Ministry of the Interior."

After questioning witnesses to the victim's detention and imprisonment and gathering information from the Ministry of the Interior, which stated that Juan Chacón was not being held by order of that Secretariat (April 1976), the summary was closed and the case was temporarily dismissed (October 27, 1976). The ruling was confirmed by the Santiago Court of Appeals on December 23, 1976.

On July 27, 1979, a new complaint for the kidnapping of Juan Chacón Olivares was filed before the Visiting Minister Servando Jordán López, who had been appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate cases of detention followed by disappearance reported in Santiago.

The filing requested that Osvaldo Romo Mena, Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda, Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, and Pedro Espinoza Bravo, all DINA agents, be summoned to testify. In addition, the reopening of the summary for case file No. 77.237 was requested. On this occasion, neither the complaint nor the reopening was granted.

In September 1979, new information was provided to Visiting Minister Servando Jordán, especially regarding the existence of witnesses to the victim's imprisonment, and the request to summon Osvaldo Romo to the Court was reiterated.

On September 17 of the same year, the summary was reopened and the case was consolidated with case file No. 91.675, regarding the disappearance of María Inés Alvarado Börgel and Martín Elgueta Pinto. On March 27, 1980, Juan Rosendo Chacón's family filed a complaint for the crime of kidnapping against Osvaldo Romo Mena and the group operating under the protection of the DINA.

Among other proceedings, the summons to testify of Carabineros Lieutenant Colonel Conrado Pacheco Cárdenas, head of the Tres Alamos Detention Camp, was requested. In this regard, the statement provided by said officer in October 1975 was noted, in which he indicated that the Cuatro Alamos pavilion was under the charge of the DINA and that its head was Gendarmerie 1st Lieutenant Orlando Manzo Durán.

For his part, this DINA agent had acknowledged before the Justice system in June 1977 that he had indeed been in charge of the Cuatro Alamos pavilion in 1974, adding that they kept a list with the names of the detainees who entered and left said facility.

Simultaneously, the Visiting Minister initiated a fruitless search for Osvaldo Romo Mena, which continued over the years without it being possible to locate him, much less ensure his appearance in the various courts where he had been summoned for his involvement in the disappearance cases of numerous people.

Security services and the corresponding authorities permanently denied the Justice system information in this regard. Even when Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda appeared before Minister Jordán in August 1979, he declared that Osvaldo Romo was only an informant for some DINA agents, but that nothing was known of him afterward.

He also denied the existence of Londres 38 as a detention center for the organization he presided over. In this regard, the Minister of National Defense and Army Lieutenant General, Raúl Benavides Escobar, officially informed Minister Jordán that "Londres 38 does not belong to the Armed Forces or Order" (July 14, 1979).

On April 28, 1980, Visiting Minister Servando Jordán López declined his jurisdiction to continue hearing the case, referring the files to the Military Justice system, which consolidated them with case file No. 553-78, instructed in the 2nd Military Prosecutor's Office of Santiago, on August 6, 1982.

This case had been initiated in August 1978, in the 10th Criminal Court, by a complaint filed by numerous relatives of forcibly disappeared persons against General Manuel Contreras Sepúlveda, and Marcelo Luis Manuel Moren Brito and Rolf Gonzalo Wenderoth Pozo, Army Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel respectively.

Faced with the declination of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs appealed the resolution to the Santiago Court of Appeals, which confirmed the incompetence of the Visiting Minister in May 1981. Without any proceedings being carried out for four years, on November 20, 1989, Army Lieutenant Colonel Enrique Ibarra Chamorro, Military Prosecutor General, requested the application of the Amnesty Decree Law (D.L. 2.191) for this case because the process had the exclusive purpose of investigating alleged crimes that occurred between September 11, 1973, and March 10, 1978, and because during the 10 years of processing, it had not been possible to "determine the responsibility of any person." On November 30, 1989, the request was accepted by the 2nd Military Court, which totally and definitively dismissed the case, which was still in the summary stage, for "the criminal responsibility of the persons allegedly accused in the reported events having been extinguished." The plaintiff parties appealed said resolution to the Court Martial, which confirmed the ruling in January 1992. A Complaint Appeal was then filed before the Supreme Court of Justice, which, as of December 1992, had not yet issued its resolution.

(Further information in the case of Eduardo Enrique Alarcón Jara).

In November 1992, former DINA agent Osvaldo Romo Mena was arrested; he had been living under a false identity in Brazil since late 1975. He had arrived in that country on instructions from the DINA and had been supported in his stay for years.

In July 1992, he was located in that country during various proceedings ordered by Judge Gloria Olivares of the 3rd Criminal Court of Santiago in the case regarding the disappearance of Alfonso Chanfreau Oyarce.

As of December 1992, the implications of the aforementioned agent's arrest and the information he was providing in the various courts where he was being required were not yet known. By that date, 7 indictments had already been recorded, 6 in cases of forcibly disappeared persons and one in the case of a deceased person.

Source: Rettig Report

Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares, a veterinarian, was 29 years old at the time of his disappearance and was a member of the MIR. His father, Raúl Chacón, shared a cell with him at Cuatro Alamos, but when he was released and went to the facility to drop off clothing for his son, he found that Juan's name no longer appeared on the lists of detainees.

Married to Verónica Martínez and father of a daughter, Camila, Juan was detained on July 15, 1974, at his home on Calle Antonio Varas by agents of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), led by Osvaldo Romo Mena and traveling in several vehicles, including Chevrolet C 10 pickup trucks.

Hours earlier, around 3:00 PM that same day, María Inés Alvarado Börgel (forcibly disappeared) had been detained in Providencia, who was with Verónica Martínez Ahumada, Juan's wife. Verónica was not arrested and headed to her home on Calle Antonio Varas, informing her husband's cousin, Antonio Osorio Olivares, of the events.

According to the latter's statements, the deployment of security agents around the building then began. The "mousetrap": Around 5:30 PM, about ten individuals, including Osvaldo Romo, appeared at the Chacón Martínez couple's apartment with María Inés Alvarado, who looked very frightened and was bleeding from her upper lip.

They raided the property and remained there, detaining everyone who arrived: at 7:00 PM, Juan's father, Raúl Chacón Zenteno, and half an hour later, Martín Elgueta. At 8:00 PM, Juan Rosendo appeared. Juan's father, wife, and cousin would later be released; but Juan Chacón, Martín Elgueta, and María Inés Alvarado remain disappeared to this day.

Source: archivochile.com undated

Operation Colombo: Supreme Court sentences 32 DINA agents for the qualified kidnapping of a veterinarian

In a unanimous ruling, the Second Chamber of the highest court confirmed the sentence that condemned César Manríquez Bravo, Pedro Espinoza Bravo, Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, and Raúl Iturriaga Neumann to 13 years of effective imprisonment as perpetrators of the crime.

The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeals filed against the sentence that condemned 32 agents of the defunct National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) for their responsibility in the crime of qualified kidnapping of veterinarian Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares.

An illicit act perpetrated starting July 15, 1974, against one of the 119 victims whose name appeared in the international disinformation maneuver known as "Operation Colombo." In a unanimous ruling (case file 104.199-2020), the Second Chamber of the highest court—composed of Minister Jorge Dahm, Minister María Teresa Letelier, Minister Juan Manuel Muñoz, and lawyers (i) Diego Munita and Eduardo Morales—ruled out error in the challenged sentence, issued by the Santiago Court of Appeals, which confirmed the first-instance ruling that dismissed the partial prescription and sentenced César Raúl Manríquez Bravo, Pedro Octavio Espinoza Bravo, Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko, and Raúl Eduardo Iturriaga Neumann to 13 years of effective imprisonment as perpetrators of the crime. Meanwhile, former agents Gerardo Ernesto Godoy García, Manuel Andrés Carevic Cubillos, Herman Helec Alfaro Mundaca, José Enrique Fuentes Torres, Julio José Hoyos Zegarra, Nelson Paz Bustamante, Rudeslindo Urrutia Jorquera, Hiro Álvarez Vega, José Alfonso Ojeda Obando, Orlando Jesús Torrejón Gatica, Enrique Tránsito Gutiérrez Rubilar, Hugo Hernández Valle, Manuel Rivas Díaz, Raúl Juan Rodríguez Ponte, Juan Evaristo Duarte Gallegos, Víctor Manuel Molina Astete, Fernando Enrique Guerra Guajardo, Olegario Enrique González Moreno, Lautaro Eugenio Díaz Espinoza, Pedro Ariel Araneda Araneda, Carlos Alfonso Sáez Sanhueza, Juan Alfredo Villanueva Alvear, Alfredo Orlando Moya Tejeda, Rafael de Jesús Riveros Frost, Leonidas Emiliano Méndez Moreno, Demóstenes Cárdenas Saavedra, Manuel Avendaño González, and Hernán Patricio Valenzuela Salas must serve 10 years of imprisonment as co-perpetrators. "That, furthermore, the constant jurisprudence of this Criminal Chamber has used the following arguments to dismiss the cause in question, based on the violation of Article 103 of the Penal Code: a) On one hand, the classification of the illicit act committed as a crime against humanity requires considering the regulations of International Human Rights Law, which excludes the application of both prescription and the so-called partial prescription in this class of crimes, understanding such institutes as closely linked in their foundations and, consequently, contrary to the regulations of ius cogens originating from that sphere of International Criminal Law, which reject impunity and the imposition of penalties not proportional to the intrinsic gravity of the crimes, based on the passage of time. b) On the other hand, it is emphasized that whatever interpretation may be made of the foundation of the legal precept in discussion, the truth is that the norms to which Article 103 refers grant a mere faculty to the judge and do not impose the obligation to decrease the amount of the penalty even if several mitigating factors concur (Among others, SCS File No. 35.788, of March 20, 2018, File No. 39.732-17, of May 14, 2018, and File No. 2458-18 of July 27, 2019). c) That, in accordance with Article 95 of the Penal Code, the prescription period for criminal action is counted from the day the crime was committed, that is, from its consummation, the stage of the iter criminis to which the law assigns the full penalty indicated for the illicit act. Consequently, in the case of permanent crimes, such as the kidnapping in the present case, which our doctrine includes among those, because it is carried out the entire time that the deprivation of liberty lasts (Matus-Ramírez, ‘Manual de Derecho Penal Chileno. Parte Especial’, Tirant lo Blanch, 2017, p. 335), the aggression against the protected legal interest is prolonged as long as the unlawful situation caused by the perpetrator lasts, so these can only be understood as consummated from the moment the criminal activity has ceased and the agent has definitively interrupted their unlawful behavior, so only from this event could the passage of the prescription period for criminal action begin to be counted. (SCS No. 2458-18 of July 27, 2019). d) Finally, just as this Court has also held in previous rulings, Article 103 of the Penal Code is not only contemplated in the same title as prescription, but is developed after it, and as both institutes are based on the passage of time as a justifying element for their application, the impropriety of applying total prescription must necessarily reach partial prescription, since no reason is seen to recognize time as having the effect of reducing the sanction, because both situations are based on the same element that is rejected by the international humanitarian penal order, so neither is appropriate in illicit acts such as the one in the present case (SCS No. 34057-16 of October 6, 2016)," the ruling details. For the highest court: "Under such conditions, the cassation appeals on the merits, filed in favor of the sentenced individuals Manuel Rivas Díaz, Hugo Hernández Valle, Alfredo Moya Tejeda, and Carlos Sáez Sanhueza; as well as the cause under examination of the substantial nullity appeal filed in favor of the sentenced individuals Lautaro Díaz Espinoza, Manuel Avendaño González, and Rafael Riveros Frost, will be dismissed." "That, in this way," it continues, "the elements of the examined illicit act and the participation in them of these accused were considered verified by the first-instance court, conclusions that the second-instance judiciary adopted, and were endorsed in the relevant part of considering paragraph 10 of the challenged sentence, in which it was added: 'Indeed, in some cases at the time of the events, these accused were part, as operational agents, of the groups belonging to the brigade of the National Intelligence Directorate that carried out the kidnapping of the members of the Revolutionary Left Movement, among whose members was Chacón Olivares, in such a way that, despite not remembering the specific name of this person, it is indisputable to conclude, just as the a quo does, that they took part in the illegitimate deprivation of liberty of this person in an immediate and direct manner as provided by the recently cited norm and that, for the same reason, they are punishable co-perpetrators of this illicit act. In other cases, in their capacities as interrogators or direct custodians of people who, after being kidnapped, were kept deprived of liberty in the clandestine detention centers named ‘Londres 38’ and ‘Cuatro Álamos’ of the National Intelligence Directorate, it cannot but be concluded that, as in the previous case, despite not remembering the specific name of Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares, these accused also took part in the kidnapping of this person in an immediate and direct manner as provided by the aforementioned precept and are punishable co-perpetrators of the crime. Indeed, in the case of the crime of kidnapping, the execution of the typical conduct is not exhausted with the act of—to put it one way—the material or physical ‘apprehension’ of the kidnapped person, but continues to be executed, and therefore the crime is in the course of consummation as long as the illegitimate confinement or illegitimate deprivation of liberty lasts. Consequently, those who perform acts that allow for the perpetuation of that state are strictly executing the conduct described by the type, independent of the prior agreement that may or may not have mediated with other participants. In other words, their acts are not simple facilitation of means for the execution or mere presence without taking direct part in it (in which case the determination of the eventual prior agreement would be relevant to qualify the intervention as authorship or complicity, in accordance with what is provided by Articles 15 No. 3 and 16 of the Penal Code), but rather executive acts proper to authorship'." "That, consequently, the cassation appeals on the merits filed by the defenses of the accused Nelson Paz Bustamante, José Ojeda Obando, Leonidas Méndez Moreno, Enrique Gutiérrez Rubilar, Hermon Alfaro Mundaca, Juan Villanueva Alvear, Julio Hoyos Zegarra, Orlando Torrejón Gatica, Rudeslindo Urrutia Jorquera, Manuel Avendaño González, Lautaro Díaz Espinoza, Rafael Riveros Frost, Pedro Espinoza Bravo, Raúl Iturriaga Neumann, and Raúl Rodríguez Ponte will be dismissed, as well as the first and seventh circumstances of Article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, invoked in the appeal filed in favor of César Manríquez Bravo, both due to the formal defects from which the referred appeals suffer and because, furthermore, no violations of the norms regulating evidence are observed," it concludes. Disinformation maneuver In the first-instance sentence, Visiting Minister Hernán Crisosto Greisse established the following facts: "That in the night hours of July 15, 1974, Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares, a veterinarian and member of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), was detained at his home located at Calle Antonio Varas 240, in the commune of Providencia, by agents belonging to the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), being taken to the clandestine detention center named ‘Londres 38’, located at that address in the city of Santiago, and then to ‘Cuatro Álamos’, located at Calle Canadá No. 3000, in Santiago, which were guarded by armed guards and to which only DINA agents had access; That the victim Chacón Olivares, during his stay at the Londres 38 and Cuatro Álamos barracks, remained without contact with the outside world, being kept blindfolded and tied up in the first facility, and subjected to constant interrogations under torture by DINA agents who operated in said barracks with the purpose of obtaining information regarding members of the MIR, to proceed with the detention of the members of that organization; That the last time the victim Chacón Olivares was seen by other detainees occurred on an undetermined day in the month of July or August 1974, with no information on his whereabouts to date. That the name of Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares appeared on a list of 119 people, published in the national press after it appeared on a list published in the magazine ‘LEA’ of Brazil, dated July 15, 1975, which reported that Juan Rosendo Chacón Olivares had died in Argentina, along with 59 other people belonging to the MIR, due to internal quarrels that arose among those members; That the publications that declared the victim Chacón Olivares dead had their origin in disinformation maneuvers carried out by DINA agents abroad." In the civil sphere, the sentence that condemned the state to pay compensation of $100,000,000 for moral damages to the victim's mother was maintained.

Source: pjud.cl 12/14/2023

PINOCHET IS INDICTED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE QUALIFIED KIDNAPPING OF JUAN CHACON AND EDUARDO ZIEDE, FORCIBLY DISAPPEARED, OPERATION COLOMBO CASE.

SANTIAGO COURT OF APPEALS

CONSULT RESOURCE STATUS RESOLUTION DETAIL

RESOURCE: 31960/2005 - RESOLUTION: 60510 - SECRETARIAT: CRIMINAL

Santiago, May twenty-fifth, two thousand six. Seen and keeping in mind: 1st That under entry number File 32.452-2005, Court entries Nos. 31.960-2005 and 31.961-2005 have been consolidated with entry No. 31.959-2005, all corresponding to case file No. 2.182-98, followed against Augusto Pinochet Ugarte and others, an episode known as Operation Colombo, to hear the appeals filed in these notebooks against the resolutions that did not grant the request to indict the aforementioned accused. 2nd That the reason cited in the appealed resolution for considering that it is not appropriate to issue the indictment orders requested in each of these notebooks against Augusto Pinochet Ugarte responds to the fact that in case file No. 553-78 of the Second Military Court of Santiago, matters concerning the detention and subsequent disappearance of Eduardo Humberto Ziede Gómez, Arturo Barría Araneda, Juan Chacón Olivares, Carmen Bueno Cifuentes, and Jorge Silva were investigated, concluding with the pronouncement of total and definitive dismissal, by application of Decree Law No. 2191, of 1978, on amnesty, from which the effect of res judicata would emanate in relation to this case. 3rd That regarding res judicata in criminal matters, there is consensus in the doctrine that the elements that compose it are the identity of the punishable act and the person responsible for it. This has also been repeatedly resolved by the Supreme Court (Cassation judgment, November 11, 2003, File No. 2505-2002). 4th That these principles, insofar as they link the punishable act with the responsibility of a specific subject, are reflected in various provisions of our code of procedure. Thus, Article 76 states that every criminal trial will begin with the investigation of the facts that constitute the infraction and determine the person or persons responsible for it; 108 points out that the existence of the punishable act is the foundation of every criminal trial, and is proven by the means indicated in Article 110; for its part, 111 provides that the offender can be determined by all the means of proof indicated in Article 110, in addition to confession; the rule of Article 274 establishes that to indict a person, the crime being investigated must be proven and there must be well-founded presumptions to consider that the accused has had participation in the punishable act. And principally to this effect, Article 408 No. 7 itself directly relates these elements by stating that the definitive dismissal will be decreed: When the punishable act in question has already been the subject of a process in which a final judgment has been reached that affects the current accused. 5th That in this case, it happens that in each of the episodes alluded to previously, proceedings were initiated to investigate the same facts, but the action was never directed against the person now accused in the case files, who never appeared as an accused, much less testified as such in that case. Consequently, it cannot be maintained that between the processes to which the appealed resolution refers and that trial, the double identity mentioned above concurs. 6th That since the requirements for res judicata to occur in criminal matters do not concur in this instance, it is appropriate to weigh the background of the process in accordance with what was requested by the plaintiff party and the provisions of Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And taking into consideration: I. That, with the merit of the birth certificate on page 1, photograph on page 3, statement of Domingo Cadin Cruces on page 4, complaint on page 11, Report of the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation on page 25, extrajudicial statement of María Cristina Olivares Castro on page 33, extrajudicial statement of Héctor Wistuba Lorca on page 37, extrajudicial statement of Verónica Martínez on page 40, extrajudicial statement of Domingo Cadin Cruces on page 49, extrajudicial statement of Erika Hennings on page 57, sworn statement of Raúl Chacón Zenteno on page 59, Report of the Ministry of the Interior on page 61, order to Investigate from Department V of the Chilean Investigative Police on page 67, police statement of Antonio Osorio Olivares on page 70, police statement of Raúl Chacón Zenteno on page 74, statement of Orlando Manzo Durán on page 77, writ of Amparo No. 803-74 on page 86, judicial statement on page 124, judicial statement of Raúl Chacón Zenteno on page 129, report of the Investigative Police on page 133, report of the Chilean Investigative Police on page 101, statement of Claudio Bustos Mujica on page 105, and police statement of Luz Arce Sandoval on page 151, it is fully justified in the case files that on July 15, 1974, around 3:30 PM, two women were deprived of their liberty on a public street on Calle Providencia and were taken to their home located on Calle Antonio Varas, where one of them lived with her spouse. Fifteen civilians broke into this home and waited until Juan Chacón Olivares himself arrived at 11:30 PM; immediately thereafter, he was deprived of his liberty along with his spouse, father, and a friend who was there, who were released a few days later, with only Chacón Olivares remaining deprived of his liberty, who was subsequently taken to the clandestine DINA detention centers, Londres 38 and then to Cuatro Alamos, the latter being the place where he was last seen, with his whereabouts unknown to date. The aforementioned clandestine detention centers were in charge of different officers who depended directly on the instructions of the then Director of National Intelligence. II. That the facts described above constitute the crime of qualified kidnapping of Juan Chacón Olivares, provided for and punished by Article 141, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Penal Code, in its text in force at the time of the perpetration of the act. III. That in this same case, indictment orders have been issued against other people who were superior agents of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), this element being of vital importance to establish the participation of the accused Pinochet Ugarte, because due to the nature of the positions held—President of the Military Government Junta and Commander-in-Chief of the Army—he could not reasonably remain ignorant of the actions of the National Intelligence Directorate, given the hierarchical organization of those institutions; at that time, he exercised direct oversight of that organization, and because the so-called Operation Colombo appears covered up by publications made abroad under conditions that suggest the knowledge and intervention of the person who held command. IV. That from these same background and statements of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte on page 584, confrontations on page 638, well-founded presumptions flow against him to consider that he has had participation in the crime referred to in the preceding section as a perpetrator. And, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 274 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the resolution of December 5, 2005, written on page 621, is revoked, and instead, it is declared that, granting the request on page 611, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte is indicted as the perpetrator of the crime of qualified kidnapping of Juan Chacón Olivares, provided for and punished in Article 141, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Penal Code. Drafted by the Substitute Minister, Ms. María Eugenia Campo Alcayaga. Register and return. File No. 31.960-2.005 Juan Chacón Olivares Pronounced by the Sixth Chamber of this Illustrious Court of Appeals, composed of ministers Mr. Mauricio Silva Cancino, Ms. Rosa Maggi Ducommun, and substitute minister Ms. María Eugenia Campos Alcayaga.

Source: Londres 38 Collective May 25, 2006