On October 30, 1974, DINA agents arrested Jacqueline Paulette DROUILLY JURICH at her home in the Providencia commune, and occupied the residence until the early hours of the 31st, the day they arrested her spouse, Marcelo Eduardo SALINAS EYTEL, a militant of the MIR, upon his arrival at the house.

On October 31, Jorge Humberto D’ORIVAL BRICEÑO, a militant of the MIR who was politically linked to Marcelo Eduardo Salinas, was also arrested at his home in the Conchalí commune by the DINA.

There are witnesses who attest to the presence of the Salinas-Drouilly couple at the Villa Grimaldi facility. Jacqueline Drouilly is also believed to have been held at José Domingo Cañas. All three detainees were last seen at Cuatro Álamos, from where they were forcibly disappeared while in the custody of the DINA.

The Commission is convinced that the disappearance of these three individuals was the work of State agents, who thereby violated their human rights.

The couple formed by Jacqueline Drouilly Yurich and Marcelo Salinas Eytel were expecting their first child. They were university students and both were members of the MIR. Since September 1974, they had been renting the second floor of a house located at 1191 Alberto Decombe Street in the capital.

The property owners, the Varela Arias family, lived on the first floor with their three children. One of the children, María Luz, was a university classmate of Jacqueline and would become an eyewitness to a large part of the events described below.

On October 30, 1974, at 9:00 PM, a group of about eight armed individuals dressed in civilian clothes, who verbally identified themselves as members of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), arrived at the home of Anita Salinas Eytel, Marcelo's sister, and interrogated her regarding his whereabouts.

As Anita did not have the requested information, they forced her to provide the address of a friend of the victim, M.A., and to lead the agents to the location to point out the house. Upon arrival, they confirmed that M.A. and her father were at the residence. The subjects then proceeded, accompanied by the three aforementioned individuals, to the home of the Salinas Drouilly couple.

Upon arriving at the Alberto Decombe address, the DINA agents forced M.A. to get out of the vehicle in which she had been transported and to ask for Marcelo Salinas Eytel. He was not there at the time; only his wife, Jacqueline, was present.

At that moment, some of the agents left the scene accompanied by Anita Salinas, M.A., and M.A.'s father. The remaining subjects entered the second floor of the property and proceeded to raid it without presenting any warrant.

At approximately 1:00 AM (on October 31, 1974), given that Marcelo Salinas had not yet arrived home, three of the agents decided to leave, taking Jacqueline Drouilly—who was two months pregnant—as a hostage, stating, as they noted, "until her husband appears." Only one agent remained stationed at the couple's home, while the others indicated they would return later.

María Luz Varela Arias would later testify before the 11th Criminal Court of Santiago, in the proceedings initiated to investigate the alleged disappearance of Jacqueline Drouilly, that "on October 30, 1974, she was at her home at 1191 Alberto Decombe with her siblings and the household employee, as her parents had traveled to Mendoza.

For this reason, and also because Marcelo Salinas, the tenant of the upper floor of her home, had warned his wife Jacqueline that he would not be coming home to sleep, the latter went to stay in María Luz's room.

At approximately 11:45 PM, they heard the doorbell of the second floor ring, and Jacqueline went to open the door in her nightgown. As she did not return to the bedroom, María Luz went up to see what was happening, finding that the access door was open and there was light in the victim's room.

Upon entering, the witness found several subjects who identified themselves as members of the Military Intelligence Service (S.I.M.), showing small cards to which she gave no importance. They were dressed in civilian clothes and armed with machine guns and pistols.

They forced her to go downstairs and then went to ask for the telephone. On this occasion, one of them, apparently the one acting as the leader, interrogated her about her tenant, Marcelo Salinas Eytel, adding that he was the 'most wanted mirista,' and asked if she knew that a brother-in-law of his was being held at the War Academy.

Around 1:00 AM, the individuals took Jacqueline away, stating that they would return to wait for her husband, with only one of them remaining in the house."

Continuing with the account of events, and according to the aforementioned judicial statement, at approximately 5:40 AM on October 31, 1974, four of the subjects in civilian clothes returned to the scene, still armed.

Two of them went up to the couple's residence, another stationed himself at the entrance door of the property, and a fourth positioned himself at the car gate. This time, they were traveling in more than one vehicle and were wearing green jackets.

Between 7:00 and 7:15 AM, Marcelo Salinas Eytel called by phone, asking for his wife. María Luz Varela answered, telling him that Jacqueline was in the bathroom, under the circumstances that she had been taken into custody hours earlier. She was forced to give this answer by DINA agents. Marcelo Salinas then announced that he would stop by to pick up Jacqueline in half an hour.

A short time later, Marcelo arrived at his home in a taxi, but observing something strange, he signaled the driver to continue without stopping. The agents who remained in his house, upon seeing what was happening, fired at the taxi's tires. Once the vehicle stopped, the detention of Marcelo Salinas was carried out, along with the taxi driver, who has not been located to this day.

Witness María Luz Varela recounted that "once she heard the shots in the street, she looked out a window and from there saw Marcelo Salinas with his arms raised while he was being searched. Shortly after, the agents returned to the house, handing her the keys and telling her that she could go in to tidy up if she wished.

At this moment, the witness took the opportunity to ask them if anything had happened to the victim, but the subjects replied that they had done nothing to him, as the shots had been fired at the taxi's tires to prevent him from escaping."

Neighbors of the Salinas Drouilly couple were also witnesses to these events. One of them noted that Marcelo was forced into a red Chevrolet pickup truck, license plate EM-965 of Las Condes, which then headed in an unknown direction.

Likewise, Mrs. María Eliana Arias Rivas—mother of María Luz Varela—would testify before the 11th Criminal Court of Santiago that on November 2, 1974, the same subjects who detained the victims returned to the Alberto Decombe address, bringing Marcelo Salinas in handcuffs.

They proceeded to remove blankets, a guitar or charango, an accordion, electronic equipment, and several small boxes containing capacitors and other parts, apparently for building transmission and reception equipment, from his room. After removing these objects, they left the scene.

Witness Arias Rivas continues to relate that a few days later, around midnight, two men dressed in civilian clothes arrived at the home again in a closed red pickup truck, which they left with the engine running.

Once they entered the residence, they verbally identified themselves as Military Intelligence officials, stating that they were going to do "a favor" for Jacqueline, in the sense that they wanted to bring her some clothes.

They then went up to what had been the couple's rooms and removed clothing belonging to both. Before they left, the witness asked them about the Salinas Drouilly couple; they replied that they could not tell her anything about them, but that they knew they would be moved to a camp the next day.

For her part, Anita Salinas Eytel was released on the same night of October 30 to 31, 1974, and left the country. M.A., after remaining disappeared for a few days and subsequently appearing detained at "Tres Álamos," was also released and left the country in December 1974.

It is noted that in a letter sent by Jacqueline Drouilly to her father, dated May 13, 1974, she describes in detail that on Friday the 3rd of the indicated month and year, at 2:45 PM, three subjects who verbally identified themselves as members of the Military Intelligence Service (S.I.M.) appeared at the couple's previous address and asked if a specific person, whom they did not know, lived there.

They proceeded to raid the home and interrogate Marcelo and Jacqueline. In a locked closet, they found documents belonging to the former owner of the property, a socialist lawyer, which corresponded to files from the legal defense of a known MIR militant.

The entire operation lasted about an hour and a half, and the subjects left after ordering them not to leave during the afternoon, as they would return.

Indeed, the subjects returned that afternoon, with a softer demeanor, as they had apparently requested references for the victim at the School of Social Work of the University of Chile. They indicated that the person involved was the former owner of the house, but that they would take Jacqueline anyway to see if she was recognized by a detainee.

Thus, on May 6, 1974, the victim was taken by three subjects to the home of the detainee's wife, located at bus stop 14 of La Florida, who did not recognize her. After this procedure, Jacqueline was returned to her home, with instructions that if anyone came or called asking for the person they were looking for, they should inform them.

The subjects continued calling the couple's home for some time.

Over the years, various testimonies and background information have accumulated, accounting for the presence of the Salinas Drouilly couple in the DINA's secret centers of political imprisonment and torture: José Domingo Cañas at República de Israel, Villa Grimaldi, and the Incommunicado Pavilion of Cuatro Álamos.

In a statement provided by Enrique Pérez Rubilar, the witness notes that he was transferred from the San Antonio Public Jail to the house on José Domingo Cañas on November 1, 1974, and placed in a one-by-two-meter room where 16 other detainees were being held, among whom he remembers Marcelo Salinas Eytel, Jorge Humberto D'Orival Briceño, and the wife of the first named, Jacqueline Drouilly Yurich (the latter was in the room next door).

Enrique Pérez adds that he knows for a fact that the couple was savagely tortured by DINA agent Osvaldo Romo Mena and his team, placing one of them on the "grill" (a metal bed frame to which a naked detainee was tied) and the other underneath, applying electric current.

This happened every day at night; they only rested when the torturers had too much work, that is, when many detainees had arrived. The reason they were so concerned about these people (Salinas, D'Orival, and Drouilly) was their alleged political ties to the then-Secretary General of the MIR, Andrés Pascal Allende.

The presence of the Salinas Drouilly couple at the José Domingo Cañas house in the first days of November 1974 is also confirmed by former detainees and residents in Germany, Edmundo Lebrecht and Gilda Bottai Monreal, as well as former detainees Liliana Ojeda, Amanda De Negri, and Luis Humberto Lillo Ahumada.

Enrique Pérez Rubilar continues to relate that around November 10 or 11, 1974, they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos, at which time they were able to talk a little before being distributed in the new facility, as their blindfolds were removed.

Thus, Marcelo Salinas was held in Room No. 13, the largest in the camp; the witness and Luis D'Orival Briceño were placed in No. 6, and Jacqueline Drouilly was held in cell No. 3. Approximately on November 20, 1974, these three people were taken out of Cuatro Álamos to be taken—as the DINA guards known by the nicknames "El Bigote" and "Mauro" said—to a better place.

Subsequently, other detainees who came from Villa Grimaldi indicated that they had been with Salinas, D'Orival, and Mrs. Drouilly, who were again being subjected to torture. The truth is that all three remain forcibly disappeared to this day.

Likewise, on February 3, 1975, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent the following communication to Mrs. Isabel Drouilly de Larco, the victim's aunt and a resident of Lima: "with reference to your letter dated January 23, 1975, we are pleased to inform you that our delegates were able to visit Mrs.

Jacqueline Drouilly, detained at the Tres Álamos Jail, on November 20, 1974 (it should have been noted as Cuatro Álamos, which corresponded to the incommunicado pavilion of the indicated facility). Regarding Mr. Marcelo Salinas Eytel, we have sent a search request to our Delegation in Santiago."

However, some time later, the Chilean Investigative Police, returning an order to investigate issued by the 11th Criminal Court of Santiago, informed the Court on October 10, 1975, that after interviewing the delegate of the International Red Cross in Chile, Mr.

Laurent Nicole, he indicated that when a report was requested at the "Tres Álamos" Prisoner Camp in order to locate the whereabouts of Mrs. Jacqueline Drouilly, it was found that she did not appear on the lists of detainees.

Only some of the detainees with whom they spoke stated that the person might be held incommunicado. He added that due to an information error, it was communicated to Geneva that the victim was detained at the aforementioned camp. Regarding Marcelo Salinas, he stated that the International Red Cross had not intervened in efforts to locate his whereabouts.

After November 20, 1974, the victim Jacqueline Drouilly was seen at the DINA's secret center of imprisonment and torture known as Villa Grimaldi by Iris Guzmán Uribe and her daughter Marcela García Guzmán.

The former would recall in a sworn statement that, being certain of being deprived of liberty at the Villa Grimaldi facility, she was able to verify that Jacqueline Drouilly had been detained there since approximately November 23 or 24, 1974.

Jacqueline told her that she and her husband had been brought from "Tres Álamos" (more correctly "Cuatro Álamos," as the victims were never in free communication), as they had been told they would be released, since they were even carrying their suitcases.

Based on the testimonies provided regarding the imprisonment of the victims, it could be stated that they were taken from Cuatro Álamos and driven to Villa Grimaldi, only to be returned later to the former facility.

Indeed, the presence of the victims at Cuatro Álamos is confirmed by the statements made in Washington by Mrs. María Estella Dabancens Gándara, who states verbatim: "I was illegally detained along with a group of friends and family in Algarrobo on November 2, 1974, by elements who identified themselves as belonging to the National Intelligence Directorate.

I was blindfolded and taken against my will to Santiago, to a place I later recognized as Villa Grimaldi. That same night, after an interrogation, I was taken to Room No. 3 of the DINA Incommunicado Pavilion known as Cuatro Álamos, remaining there for about two months before being expelled from the country.

My stay in this place is a constant memory of inhumane treatment, due to the regime of terror imposed on the detainees and the large number of people who were there. I remember that in the first days of November 1974, Jacqueline Drouilly, a Social Worker, arrived at my cell, detained along with her husband Marcelo Salinas Eytel in October of the same year.

Mrs. Drouilly had been brutally beaten and tortured at the interrogation house located at José Domingo Cañas, in Ñuñoa. Her shoes and clothes were destroyed by the violence of the treatment received. She remained in my cell until approximately the first days of December 1974 (this date could actually correspond to the last days of November of that year, when the victim was taken to Villa Grimaldi, returning to 4 Álamos in the first days of December)."

Jacqueline Drouilly, who stood out for her great human qualities, her joy, and her conviction, constantly seeking ways to establish some kind of communication with her husband, was transferred around that time to cell No. 4, adjacent to mine, and we communicated from then on through the windows of the cells.

One night in mid-December 1974, around 2:00 AM, security elements took the victim out to the Pavilion hallway, accompanied by her husband Marcelo Salinas Eytel. To the rest of the detainees, this situation seemed strange, as that was not a time to carry out transfers to "Tres Álamos" nor to release anyone, due to the curfew in effect.

From then on, I would never see the victims again nor hear from them."

The presence of Jacqueline Drouilly in the "Cuatro Álamos" Incommunicado Prisoners Pavilion on the indicated dates is also proven by the statements of witnesses Sandra Machuca Contreras, her mother Valeska Contreras Alvarez, and Cecilia Jarpa Zúñiga. The latter two shared cell No. 4 with the victim at the indicated facility.

Likewise, Juvenal Cortés was a witness to the imprisonment of Marcelo Salinas Eytel at the Villa Grimaldi and "Cuatro Álamos" facilities, between November 25 and 27, 1974, and in December of the same year, respectively.

It has also been noted that the victim was seen in very poor physical condition at the DINA torture house located at Londres 38, known by that name, in the first days of November 1974.

In the United Nations Report on Human Rights Violations, dated July 4, 1975, it is noted that Jacqueline Drouilly was positively seen at "Cuatro Álamos" between December 22 and 24, 1974.

For his part, Cristián Van Yurick Altamirano, a cousin of the victim who was detained by DINA agents on July 12, 1974, notes that he saw Jacqueline at the "Cuatro Álamos" Camp in January 1975, and while talking to her, she explained that she was there with her husband Marcelo Salinas Eytel, that he was well, and that he should notify her family.

Likewise, in an Amnesty International report, this organization states that it saw the victim at Cuatro Álamos in March 1975.

Despite all the background information presented, the Chilean government informed the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that Jacqueline Paulette Drouilly Yurich "had no legal existence."

The names of the victims appear on a list of 60 Chilean miristas, supposedly killed by "their own comrades in struggle" in various foreign countries (Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, and France), "at the culmination of a long process of mutual divergences, recriminations, and disputes over money, which began with the fall of the Marxist government of Salvador Allende," published in the Buenos Aires weekly LEA, which was circulated only once (on July 15, 1975), precisely to release the "list of the dead," and then vanished.

This list, combined with another list of 59 Chileans, members of the defunct Revolutionary Left Movement (M.I.R.), reported as dead, wounded, or escaped in guerrilla actions with security forces in the town of Salta, Argentina, and published in the Brazilian newspaper O'Dia, totals 119 people.

Three Chilean newspapers reproduced this information: El Mercurio, La Segunda, and Las Últimas Noticias, on July 23, 24, and 25, 1975, respectively.

When the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs was consulted about the veracity of such information, it informed the Santiago Court of Appeals, the court hearing a writ of amparo filed on behalf of Jacqueline Drouilly, that there was no official record to establish that the mentioned persons had died abroad or had left the country, and that the authorities of the countries where, according to the publications, the events had occurred, had reported nothing on the matter.

JUDICIAL AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

On November 19, 1974, the victim's mother-in-law, Mrs. Norma Yurich Costagliolo, filed a writ of amparo on his behalf before the Santiago Court of Appeals, which was assigned case number 1437.

The filing requested the issuance of official letters to the Ministry of the Interior and the National Executive Secretariat of Detainees. On the same date, the Court only granted the first of the requested measures and, ex officio, ordered that the Commander-in-Chief of the State of Siege Zone and the Commander of the Combat Aviation Command be notified, reiterating these requests on December 26, 1975.

The aforementioned authorities reported that the person for whom the amparo was filed was not detained by order of the Ministry of the Interior, nor prosecuted by the Aviation Courts dependent on the Combat Command, on January 8, 1975, and December 31 of the previous year, respectively.

On January 20, 1975, Colonel Hernán Ramírez Ramírez reported, by order of the Chief of the State of Siege Zone, that no case was being brought against the victim in the 2nd Military Court of Santiago, nor was he detained within the jurisdiction of that Headquarters.

On January 23, 1975, the petitioner requested that an official letter be sent to the Commander of the "Tres Álamos" Prisoner Camp, as she had been unofficially informed that the victim was being held at that facility.

On the 20th of the same month and year, and to proceed with the hearing of the appeal, the Court ordered a report to be requested from the Minister of Defense, noting that the person for whom the amparo was filed was allegedly detained at the "Tres Álamos" Camp.

On March 5, 1975, it was certified in the case file that the National Executive Secretariat of Detainees, via Official Letter No. 3550/753, reported that Marcelo Salinas Eytel had no records.

Based on the reports added to the process, and keeping in mind that it did not appear from the case files that the victim was detained or imprisoned, nor that there was an arrest warrant against him, the filed writ of amparo was rejected on March 5, 1975.

Likewise, it was ordered that the background information be sent to the respective Criminal Court so that the possible commission of a crime could be investigated, due to the disappearance of Marcelo Salinas.

Thus, by Official Letter from the Court of Appeals, a process for the alleged disappearance of the victim was initiated before the 6th Criminal Court of Santiago, which was assigned case number 91.315 and began on March 11, 1975.

On that same date, the Court ordered a rogatory commission to be sent to the Duty Court of Temuco in order to interrogate the amparo petitioner, who resided in that city, and an investigation order was issued.

In compliance with the investigation order, Mrs. María Eliana Arias Rivas, owner of the property at 1191 Alberto Decombe, was interviewed. She stated that since September 1974, she had been renting the 2nd floor of her home to the couple Marcelo Salinas Eytel and Jacqueline Drouilly Yurich, as the latter was a university classmate of her daughter María Luz Varela Arias, but that on October 30, 1974, some strangers arrived at the place and took both of them away.

The respective order adds that when SENDET and the different branches of the Armed Forces were consulted, no favorable records were found, nor did the efforts made to locate any relative of the disappeared person yield results, as the closest ones resided in Temuco.

On April 11, 1975, the victim's mother-in-law testified in the process, stating that through references from a daughter of the owner of the Alberto Decombe property (María Luz Varela Arias), she learned that Marcelo Salinas Eytel and her daughter Jacqueline Drouilly Yurich had been detained by members of the Military Intelligence Service (S.I.M.) on October 30 and 31, 1974.

Without further proceedings, the summary was declared closed on May 13, 1975, and the Court, keeping in mind that from the background information accumulated in the case, no crime was justified in the alleged disappearance of Marcelo Salinas Eytel, temporarily dismissed the case until new and better evidence was presented to investigate.

The case was sent for review to the Santiago Court of Appeals, which approved the dismissal resolution on July 16, 1975.

On the same date previously indicated, when the dismissal was approved, Mrs. Norma Yurich Costagliolo filed a complaint before the 11th Criminal Court of Santiago for the crime of kidnapping against her son-in-law and her daughter.

This was initially assigned number 2994, but was subsequently consolidated with the case for the alleged disappearance of Jacqueline Drouilly, processed before the same Court, retaining number 2681-4, which corresponds to the latter.

The complaint requested that the eyewitness to the detention of the Salinas Drouilly couple be summoned to appear before the court, as well as the issuance of official letters to the Ministry of the Interior and Defense, SENDET, the Chief of the State of Siege Zone, the Combat Aviation Command, the General Directorate of Carabineros and Investigations, and especially to the DINA and the Legal Medical Institute.

The Court granted all requested measures and accepted the complaint.

Likewise, on August 25, 1975, a broad investigation order was issued, an account of the dispatched official letters was requested, they were reiterated, and the summons for witness María Luz Varela Arias was rendered void, as she had already testified in the case.

In the first days of September 1975, the Ministry of the Interior and the National Executive Secretariat of Detainees reported that the victims had not been detained and had no records, with the first of the mentioned organizations adding that it should be noted that the DINA, in its Official Letter (R) No. 3550/5/50, had reported that Jacqueline Drouilly and Marcelo Salinas had no records in that Directorate's Kardex.

For its part, responding to the sent Official Letter, the Legal Medical Institute reported that, after a thorough review from 1973 to date, the victims did not appear as having been admitted. Likewise, the Secretary—Jorge Aguilera Rivera—of the 2nd Military Court of Santiago reported that after reviewing the case entry books from 1973 to date, no judicial process against the victims appeared registered.

The Commander of the Combat Command for Aviation Courts in Wartime, General Mario Vivero Aguila, reported to the Court in the same sense.

By virtue of the investigation order, unsuccessful efforts were made at SENDET and the "Tres Álamos" Prisoner Camp. Likewise, testifying extrajudicially before police officers, the delegate of the International Red Cross in Chile, Laurent Nicole, denied the information given by this organization on February 3, 1975, to Jacqueline Drouilly's family (stating he had seen her at "Tres Álamos" on November 20, 1974), arguing that it had been an error, and added that they had not intervened in efforts to locate the whereabouts of Marcelo Salinas either.

By virtue of the above, on October 23, 1975, the Court ordered Mr. Nicole to be summoned to appear before the court. However, without this step being completed, the summary was declared closed and the case was temporarily dismissed on March 31, 1976, keeping in mind that based on the gathered evidence, the existence of a crime or quasi-crime in the reported events was not proven in the case file.

Upon appeal of this resolution, the Santiago Court of Appeals approved the dismissal on June 18, 1976.

The name of the victim was included, on May 28, 1975, in a complaint for mass kidnapping, filed before the Santiago Court of Appeals for a total of 163 people who disappeared after their arrest, requesting the appointment of a Visiting Minister to direct the investigations.

It was noted that the request covered the situation of people arrested during the second half of 1974 and the first half of 1975, for whom writs of amparo had been filed in a timely manner and an investigation had also been requested from the Ordinary Criminal Courts.

The request, which was duly documented in each particular case, was rejected by the Plenary of the Court of Appeals on June 23, 1975. Only five of its magistrates were in favor of accepting it.

On July 4, 1975, the Committee for Cooperation for Peace in Chile, adopting the request of the relatives of the 163 people who disappeared after their arrest, filed a new request for the appointment of a Visiting Minister, this time before the Supreme Court, which was rejected on July 11 of the same year, arguing that "the respective judges have carried out adequate investigations in most of the corresponding summaries." On this occasion, three magistrates of the Highest Court, its President Mr.

José María Eyzaguirre and ministers Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Erbetta, were in favor of accepting the request "given the gravity presented by the case, due to the number of disappeared persons and the time elapsed since they have been."

By virtue of the occurrence of new events that meant adding important background information to the presented cases, the Committee for Cooperation for Peace in Chile filed a new request for the appointment of a Visiting Minister on August 1, 1975, which was also rejected.

Among these new background facts is the fact that on July 23, 1975, the national press reproduced a news item from the magazine LEA of Buenos Aires, according to which 60 Chileans were reported dead in Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, and France.

Likewise, on July 24 of the same year, the newspaper La Segunda, citing as a source the newspaper O'Día of Curitiba, Brazil, provided a new list that this time included 59 Chileans supposedly dead, wounded, or escaped, as a result of an armed confrontation with Argentine police forces that occurred in the town of Salta.

One of the agents who, according to one of the witnesses, tortured the Salinas Drouilly couple in November 1974 at the José Domingo Cañas facility, was Osvaldo Romo Mena, who was arrested in November 1992 after being expelled from Brazil.

The aforementioned agent had resided in Brazil since the end of 1975 under the identity of Osvaldo Andrés Henríquez Mena. At that time, on instructions from the DINA, the organization to which he belonged, he left the country because he was being summoned by several Courts that were processing cases for human rights violations.

His location was the result of a series of proceedings decreed in the case for the disappearance of Alfonso Chanfreau Oyarce. Since he was arrested, and as of December 1992, he has testified in several processes for forcibly disappeared persons, and in 6 of them, he has been charged as a defendant.

Source: Corporation report