The kidnapping of the 14 political prisoners from the Antofagasta jail, bound and blindfolded, was recorded in the Gendarmerie Armed Guard's Logbook. The entry was written at 23:30 hours on October 18, 1973, starting on the thirteenth line of page 290.

It was the night of the Caravan of Death massacre in that city. Two young officers from the Antofagasta Armored School ordered their subordinates to load the detainees onto two trucks. The names of both officers were inscribed in the book because the Gendarmerie demanded they sign the logbook to record the removal: "Lieutenants Gonzalo Santelices Cuevas and Pablo Martínez Latorre sign." The trucks were placed at the disposal of "Lobo" Sergio Arellano, the head of the Caravan, by the commander of Santelices and Martínez at the Armored unit, Colonel Adrián Ortiz Gutmann.

Two hours later, the 14 kidnapped individuals—removed from the jail under the excuse that they would be taken to a court-martial that never took place—were torn apart by gunfire and bayonets in the Quebrada del Way.

Today, Santelices, recently promoted to Division General, is the commander of the Army Garrison of the Metropolitan Region. Martínez Latorre is not part of the Army high command, and LND does not know if he is active or retired.

The content of the Guard's Logbook regarding the handover of the prisoners to the two officers was incorporated into a report by the Antofagasta Criminal Court dated February 5, 1986, whose presiding judge conducted "an ocular inspection" at the jail of the book where the entry and removal of the 14 detainees is recorded.

Among them were Eugenio Ruiz-Tagle Orrego, a MAPU militant and relative of former President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, and the general manager of the northern branch of the Production Development Corporation (Corfo) and head of the Socialist Party of Antofagasta, Mario Silva Iriarte.

The judicial report is attached to the Caravan case file instructed by Judge Juan Guzmán, which is currently being overseen by Minister Víctor Montiglio. Meticulously, the book even recorded the license plates of the trucks: BFU-77 and EI-412.

The plaintiff lawyer in this case, Hugo Gutiérrez, maintains: "We have been stunned to confirm that this Mr. Santelices is today a General of the Republic in active service, having kidnapped, bound and blindfolded, the 14 prisoners who were later murdered by the Caravan of Death along with local officers from Antofagasta who also took part in the massacre.

Therefore, we will request the indictment of General Santelices, because General (R) Ortiz Gutmann has already been indicted for placing the military trucks at Arellano's disposal." In the pampa A witness to the kidnapping of the 14 detainees that night was the then-Gendarmerie corporal Luis González Pacheco. "They lined them up next to the trucks and one who was in charge started calling roll.

Then he said: 'Alright, get them up!' The soldiers threw them into the truck like sacks of potatoes. The detainees were scared and some were asking: 'Where are you taking me? What are you going to do to me?'" This was his account recorded in the case file.

It is General Santelices himself who recounts the epilogue in one of his judicial statements. He relates that they left Antofagasta in the trucks and headed into the pampa. They stopped and waited until Arellano's death squad arrived.

Traveling with him was Ortiz Gutmann, who ordered Santelices and Martínez to have the detainees get out. "We lined them up in front of the trucks, which had their lights on. I saw that Fernández Larios was there.

Immediately, thousands of shots were heard," declares Santelices. They collected the massacred bodies and loaded them into the same trucks. "We took them to the morgue, where they were waiting for us," the general himself affirms.

It was the horrific spectacle that General Joaquín Lagos Osorio recounted to Judge Juan Guzmán before he died. "They were unrecognizable, massacred." Lagos was the division commander and was the one who confronted Arellano, shouting, "because of this crime behind my back." Hours later, he dared to confront the dictator Pinochet himself at the Antofagasta airfield. "You ordered it!" he growled at him.

Due obedience? The situation of General Santelices, who declares in the case, "I was only a second lieutenant who graduated in 1973," reopens the discussion. Are young officers who obeyed orders criminally liable?

And if not, ethically and morally, should officers who participated in any way in crimes against humanity remain in the ranks of the Army, and even more so in the high command? For plaintiff lawyer Eduardo Contreras, General Santelices "is at least an accomplice or accessory after the fact and must be indicted, because the principle of due obedience has long since been discarded for these types of crimes." He adds that if a judge were to estimate that he has no criminal responsibility, "ethically and morally, he cannot be where he is.

In these types of crimes, the principle of innocence that has been invoked regarding the case of these generals cannot apply until they are indicted and convicted by a judge. That is something that damages the image of the Armed Forces and offends society and the memory of the victims and their families."

Source: La Nacion, January 28, 2008

Judge sealed the fate of General (R) Santelices

Judge Víctor Montiglio sealed the fate of the now-retired general and former commander of the Army Garrison of the Metropolitan Region, Gonzalo Santelices Cuevas. After a 14-month investigation, following La Nación's revelation in January 2008 of Santelices' participation in the Antofagasta episode of the Caravan of Death crimes in October 1973, the magistrate managed to prove it and has the indictment ready against him, as well as against officer (R) Pablo Martínez Latorre and four other retired military personnel.

The resolution, confirmed to this newspaper by military and court sources, will be made known in the coming days. The former commander of the Metropolitan Region Garrison had to leave the ranks of the institution in February 2008, after a week of negotiations between the Army and the Government.

The Santelices case broke the military maxim that a general or lower-ranking officer only leaves the Army when they are indicted or when a conviction is handed down against them. Santelices was brought down by part of his own judicial statement from September 24, 2002, in the trial for the Caravan crimes.

In his case and that of Martínez, the minister did not apply the principle of "due obedience" (receiving superior orders) due to the low rank they held at the time of the events. Santelices was a second lieutenant and Martínez a lieutenant.

This argument is frequently invoked by the legal defenses of military personnel who committed crimes against humanity after the 1973 military coup. Confrontations and interrogations The judge subjected Santelices to repeated interrogations and confrontations with other retired officers and non-commissioned officers.

Practically all of them confirmed the participation of the former commander of the Metropolitan Garrison and Martínez Latorre. Among the main proceedings carried out by the judge, which led to sealing the fate of the (R) officers, was a marathon round of interrogations and confrontations held in Antofagasta in 2008.

At the beginning of last year, the judge opened practically a new investigation into the entire Antofagasta episode, upon realizing that there were a number of officers and non-commissioned officers who had not been indicted but who had taken an active part in these crimes.

On the night of October 18, 1973, Santelices and Martínez removed 14 prisoners from the Antofagasta jail, drove them into the desert in trucks, and lined them up to massacre them with bayonets and bullets. They then collected the bodies and deposited them, destroyed, in the morgue.

Source: La Nación, April 16, 2009

Santelices' lawyer argued that he was a student during the Caravan of Death

Marcos Romero, the lawyer for General (r) Oscar Santelices, who was arrested this Monday for his participation as an accomplice and accessory after the fact in the passage of the Caravan of Death through Antofagasta in October 1973, justified the request for release he presented by stating that his client was a student at the time and only followed orders. "General Santelices was sleeping when, at that time, as a student, a student second lieutenant, they woke him up, told him to get into a truck, to follow another truck, and the Gendarmerie handed over the prisoners and they were transported and placed at the disposal of another officer," declared Romero, adding that "therefore, there would be no knowledge or awareness of the criminal act." Santelices resigned from the Army in February of this year while he was head of the institution's metropolitan garrison after confessing to Judge Juan Guzmán and ratifying before Minister Víctor Montiglio that he had been part of the Caravan of Death, but only as a student. On the other hand, plaintiff lawyer Boris Paredes declared that Santelices did not act only as an accomplice "but as a perpetrator," because under international law, anyone who participates in a crime against human rights is responsible, so "we are going to study the possibility of appealing the resolution." Judge Juan Guzmán indicted General Sergio Arellano Stark and the other members of the Caravan of Death such as Sergio Arredondo, Marcelo Moren Brito, and Pedro Espinoza, which was ratified by Montiglio. Along with Santelices, retired officers Army Major Patricio Ferrer Ducaud and Lieutenant Pablo Martínez Latorre were arrested for the same crime.

Source: Cooperativa.cl, April 20, 2009

Along with two other (R) officers for the Caravan of Death crimes

Arrested at the Peñalolén Military Police Battalion and indicted for the crime of 14 prisoners in Antofagasta in October 1973, the former commander of the Military Garrison of the Metropolitan Region, General (r) Gonzalo Santelices Cuevas, remains in custody.

Along with him, (R) Army officers Pablo Martínez Latorre and Patricio Ferrer Ducaud were arrested and likewise charged for the same events by Judge Víctor Montiglio. Thus, and after 14 months of investigation, since La Nación Domingo revealed in January 2008 the participation of Santelices in the crimes of the Caravan of Death in Antofagasta, the judge managed to prove the facts in which the now-retired general took part along with the other two mentioned officers.

In January 2008, Santelices was in active service, but after a week of intense meetings between the Government and the Army, he was forced to leave the ranks of the institution. Although the three military personnel were charged as accomplices, the lawyer for the Human Rights Program of the Ministry of the Interior, Boris Paredes, and the plaintiff lawyer Hugo Gutiérrez, told La Nación that they will appeal the judge's resolution so that the status of accomplices is reclassified to the category of perpetrators.

In the desert The three indicted individuals participated on the night of October 18, 1973, in the removal of the 14 prisoners from the Antofagasta jail, driving them into the desert to be murdered by members of the Caravan of Death and by military personnel from the Armored School of that city.

Then Santelices and the others collected the bodies, massacred by bayonets and machine-gun fire, taking them to the local morgue. Lawyer Gutiérrez stated that "now the judge must establish who the Antofagasta military personnel were who participated in this massacre, because until now it has not been clarified." Versions from some witnesses indicate that a group of young second lieutenants who had recently graduated from the Military School and were assigned to that Armored School also took an active part in the mass murder.

The magistrate is now investigating this potential participation. With the indictment issued by Minister Montiglio, another fact unknown until last year is confirmed in the extensive list of crimes committed during the military dictatorship.

Source: La Nación, April 21, 2009

Punta Peuco exceeds capacity: 6 new military personnel entered the prison this week

This week, 6 new retired military personnel were admitted to the Punta Peuco prison, all of them convicted in the context of the Caravan of Death case in Antofagasta. On Wednesday, Army colonels (r) Sergio Carlos Arredondo González and Patricio Ferrer Ducaud entered the penitentiary facility, who must serve 15 years and 1 day in prison for the crime of homicide; Army major (r) Pablo Abelardo Martínez Latorre, sentenced to 5 years in prison as an accomplice; and Army colonel (r) Abelardo Martínez Latorre, who was sentenced to three years in prison as an accessory after the fact, as reported by La Tercera. Meanwhile, Thursday afternoon was the turn of retired Army colonel Juan Chiminelli Fullerton, sentenced to 15 years for homicide; and retired Army brigadier Emilio De la Mahotiere González, sentenced to 3 years and 1 day as an accessory after the fact to qualified homicide. It was indicated that the Gendarmerie had to enable the facility, since with the arrival of the 6 former uniformed personnel, the Punta Peuco prison located in the commune of Til Til is exceeding its capacity limit, which is 112 inmates. However, despite having more inmates than allowed, the Government reportedly plans to close the prison between April and May, because a Supreme Court ruling is expected to transfer another 10 inmates convicted in the Operation Colombo case. The media outlet also notes that a direct resolution from Bachelet would decree the closure of the controversial penitentiary facility. As has transpired, as an alternative to Punta Peuco, there is an intention to enable modules in Colina 1 to accommodate nearly 300 people. Meanwhile, the current prison would be destined for people serving time for minor crimes.

Source: biobio.cl, February 12, 2016

"They are not corrected for life in society": Parole denied to the 33 Punta Peuco inmates who applied for the benefit

According to the analysis of the Parole Commission of the Court of Appeals, the inmates included in the application list prepared by the penitentiary facility do not meet the requirements, as "they do not sufficiently acknowledge the crime committed." For now, they will remain "behind bars." The Parole Commission of the Santiago Court of Appeals rejected the requests of the 33 Punta Peuco inmates who applied for the benefit.

The determination refers to the request of those inmates who were on list no. 1 prepared by the aforementioned penitentiary facility located in the commune of Til Til, which accounted for the inmates' desire to obtain the benefit.

The resolution signed by the president of the Commission, Tomás Gray Gariazzo, establishes that the benefit will not be granted "given that they do not meet the established requirement, as they are not corrected or rehabilitated for life in society, because the psychological reports issued establish that the convicted individuals do not sufficiently acknowledge the crime committed, without having an adequate awareness of the harm caused, and their willingness to change turns out to be ambivalent." Along with reporting this situation, which encompasses the 34 inmates that the Punta Peuco Conduct Tribunal nominated (the commission only ruled on 33), the body also addressed each case individually, evidencing what was established in the analyses. "We, the 33 of Punta Peuco, are doing very badly" For lawyer Raúl Meza, who represents several of the inmates, "the grounds invoked are openly illegal and unconstitutional by establishing as a legal requirement for the granting of the benefit the awareness of the crime and the harm caused and the repentance for the crimes committed." Taking that into account, he asserts that the "resolution flagrantly violates the recent doctrine established by the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in the latest rulings in which it granted Parole to Punta Peuco inmates, which stated that, if the 'inmate meets the objective requirements established in DL 321 and, as long as this is not modified by another law, the benefit will be granted to the inmate regardless of the nature of the crime for which they are serving a sentence'." "Furthermore, it is inadmissible from a technical-professional point of view that in all the psychological reports the same grounds are invoked literally regarding all the Punta Peuco inmates, a situation that will be legally challenged with new psychological reports issued by judicial experts other than the psychologists who work in the prison," he adds. This is why he announced that they will file mass amparo appeals in favor of these 33 inmates. "The message I received today from the Punta Peuco inmates after this denial of Parole was: 'We, the 33 of Punta Peuco, are doing very badly'." Psychological analysis considered by the commission 1-Gerardo Alejandro Aravena Longa: According to the psychosocial report, he manifests a tendency to rationalize and justify his own behavior. 2-Carlos Enrique Blanco Plummer: In relation to the harm caused, he manages to incipiently integrate the victim into his narrative, focusing rather on personal losses (separation from his family), pointing out that there has been no justice for him and them. 3-Ramón Pedro Cáceres Jorquera: His awareness regarding the harm caused is insufficient. He tends to minimize and justify his actions, not being capable of establishing an authentic need to make changes in himself regarding the illicit acts committed. 4-Álvaro Julio Corbalán Castillo: The awareness of the damage and harm caused is insufficient, since although he expresses a narrative with various elements, such as awareness of the crime, responsibility for the events, and the victims, he does not delve into the latter, being marginalized in his narrative and in relation to the willingness to change. The significant attachment to his beliefs and idealization of the role fulfilled for his institution does not allow him to evaluate his actions in an integral and objective manner. He dismisses problems of himself regarding his behavior, which implies, under his understanding, that there are no needs to modify his attitude toward the illicit acts for which he is serving a sentence. 5-Hernán Alejandro de la Fuente Irribarra: He manifests that he is serving an unjust sentence, as he reaffirms that he has done nothing improper, for which he expresses not having to repent. By denying the commission of any crime, he does not demonstrate repentance or guilt. 6-Pedro Octavio Espinoza Bravo: He has no awareness of the crime, awareness of the damage caused, or willingness to change. He denies any type of participation and responsibility in the illicit acts for which he is serving a sentence, accepting circumstantially some responsibility based on the hierarchical level he held at that time. He does not account for personal actions that could cause damage to third parties. He focuses on the damage suffered by himself and his family. He says there are no improper behaviors carried out by his person, so he does not recognize a need for change. 7-Miguel Arturo Estay Reuno: Awareness of the damage and harm caused appears insufficient; he does not manage to integrate the victims into the spectrum of emotions, since these would be secondary to the cognitive emphasis he uses. He evidences insufficient awareness of the harm caused, centering his reflection on the negative consequences that the time in confinement has meant for him. He minimizes and justifies his behavior; he does not manage to empathize appropriately with the victims, nor generate a real change or modification of cognitive beliefs. 8-Santiago Humberto Fernández Espinoza: Insufficient awareness of the crime and the damage and harm caused. He minimizes his responsibility, justifying his actions and ultimately denying having committed a criminal behavior. He does not integrate or represent the victim empathically. He presents no willingness to change. 9-Francisco Maximiliano Ferrer Lima: His awareness of the crime is medium; he only accepts his participation in terms of a judicial ruling. Absent awareness of the damage and harm caused, as well as willingness to change. He tends to focus on his personal losses as a product of confinement, presenting himself as one more victim of the circumstances. 10-José Manuel García Reyes: He denies having carried out improper actions; he does not visualize a need to establish changes. He does not manage to perceive a need for repentance in relation to eventual illegalities committed. He denies what was established in the judicial sentences. 11-Carlos Alberto Herrera Jiménez: Medium awareness of the crime; the awareness of the damage and harm caused is insufficient, as is the willingness to change. He does not manage to empathize genuinely with the victims; again, an emotional over-control appears in these contents. On the other hand, insufficient willingness to change is observed. 12-Patricio Orlando Marabolí Orellana: A predominance and balance between the variables of extroversion and introversion is observed, but predominating toward the second, where he gives an account of a slow, reflective, and closed nature. By denying his participation in the events, he does not show repentance regarding actions of his linked to the criminal events, but he does show himself to be affected by the state of the victims' families and the lack of his own actions to make some type of change at that moment. 13-Pablo Abelardo Martínez Latorre: Awareness of the damage and harm caused appears insufficient; he recognizes the duress carried out by the institution, adding that he accepts having harmed third parties indirectly. Regarding the willingness to change, a contemplative motivational stage is configured. Regarding eventual repentance, although he states in his discourse that he is repentant of what happened to the victims, the content is still in evolution. 14-Rodrigo Pérez Martínez: It is established that although he shows genuine and deep emotions, these are associated incipiently with the victims; conversely, more cognitive than emotional elements are observed where rationalization prevails as a mechanism to stop the emotional flow that his crime implies. 15-Raúl Pablo Quintana Salazar: Awareness of the crime is absent; he does not manage to visualize the illicit character of his behavior, carrying out a very superficial elaboration in this regard, denying having committed any crime. He tends to victimize himself and justify his role, where he comments that he offered help to the detainees. The awareness of the damage and harm caused is insufficient; he does not manage to incorporate an image of the victims into his discourse, lacking empathy toward them. He exhibits an indifferent, rather egocentric discourse regarding the consequences that the assumptions implied. Regarding the willingness to change, it appears absent. In the criminological synthesis, a pre-contemplative motivational stage is appreciated, not managing to evidence any need for change. 16-Emilio Robert de la Mahotiere González: The awareness of the crime appears absent; he asserts that he has no responsibility for the events and that at the moment they occurred he was unaware of them, for which he perceives himself as unjustly convicted. The awareness of the damage and harm caused appears insufficient and the willingness to change absent; he does not visualize the need for changes in his person. He is not capable of perceiving any personal requirement that compels him to modify his attitude in this regard, for which he does not give an account of a willingness to change. He does not visualize reasons for which he could repent. 17-José Torres Riquelme: The awareness of the crime and awareness of the damage and harm caused appear insufficient and his willingness to change pre-contemplative. There is low effective commitment in his discourse, forming a low awareness of the harm caused. He does not give an account of illicit behaviors on his part, so he does not refer to needs for change in himself. 18-Juan Artemio Valderrama Molina: His awareness of the crime and awareness of the damage and harm caused appear medium, and in relation to the criminological synthesis, it establishes that regarding his eventual repentance, it is appreciated at an insufficient level, since according to what is estimated by the report, he narrates with great coldness the reasons for which he is detained, not demonstrating repentance for the crime, although he manages to evaluate cognitively that now he could have made another decision. 19-Guillerno Antonio Vargas Avendaño: The awareness of the crime appears insufficient because he does not manage to visualize the illicit character of his behavior, carrying out a very superficial elaboration in this regard, denying having committed any crime. The willingness to change appears absent. He does not evidence a need for change regarding his attitude. He attempts to incorporate the victims spontaneously into his narrative; he does so with a diminished ideo-affective correlation. 20-Klaudio Erich Kosiel Horning: Regarding the awareness of the crime, he points out that, nevertheless, he does not assume the accusations of kidnapping, which constitute him as an agent of aggression or violence. 21-Luis Polanco Gallardo: The report indicates that he has insufficient awareness of the damage, describing his participation in an objective and formal manner and denies having caused damage to third parties, focusing on the negative consequences for himself and his family. 22-José Luis Guzmán Sandoval: The report indicates that his awareness of the crime is "absent." He denies his participation and does not manage to analyze the omission he makes of the act of aggression toward third parties. Likewise, regarding the victims, he does not manage to visualize their emotional consequences suffered by them and their families. 23-Patricio Enrique Jeldres Rodríguez: It is reported that the inmate demonstrates insufficient social perspective-taking and capacity for empathy, and regarding the awareness of the damage and harm caused, he focuses on personal and family losses and incorporates the victims into his narrative only in a moderately empathetic manner. 24-Raúl Iturriaga Neumann: The report indicates that regarding the awareness of the crime, it is insufficient, since he denies his responsibility, justifying it in the fulfillment of orders, and regarding the awareness of the damage and harm caused, it is insufficient, and he does not manage to integrate the people who constitute the victims significantly and empathically. 25-Erasmo Vega Sobarzo: The psychosocial report indicates that although he is capable of identifying the victims of his behavior, it is with scarce ideo-affective correlation. And regarding the awareness of the crime, he only shows himself in a passive role and of collaboration in it. 26-José Zara Holger: For his part, in his psychosocial report, it is pointed out that he lacks awareness of the crime and the damage caused, since he denies responsibility for the events and does not manage to identify behaviors or attitudes that he should modify in this regard, evidencing a pre-contemplative motivational state. 27-Vittorio Orvieto Tipilitzky: He denies his participation and has low reflection on the context and the actions in which he was involved and indicates that the logic he maintains of the events is minimized and justified with accessory elements and shows himself reluctant to make changes in himself regarding his attitude toward the facts for which he is serving a sentence. 28-Juan Vidal Olgueta: He denies all participation in the events and therefore does not visualize changes that he should make in this regard in his person and does not manage to incorporate a specific image of the victim. 29-Raúl Enrique Zapata: By disclaiming all responsibility for the facts for which he is serving a sentence, he affirms that he supposes the treatment they gave the detained victims, taking knowledge of the executions after their handover. Therefore, he recognizes the detention of the people, but conceptualizes it as kidnapping or a crime, which denotes a medium awareness of it. 30-Adolfo Lapostol Sprovera: The awareness of the crime is reported as merely circumstantial and the awareness of the damage indicates that he only integrates the victims in a general way and they are ideo-affectively correlative, placing emphasis on personal consequences over third parties. 31-Miguel Krassnoff Martchenko: The psychosocial report indicates that he has an absent awareness of the crime, the damage caused, and willingness to change, pointing out that his sentence is unjust, illegal, and the product of prevarication on the part of those who judged him. He does not manage to empathize with the victims and therefore does not find reasons for which to carry out modifications in his behavior. 32-Jorge Osses Novoa: It is pointed out that a diminished capacity to empathize with others is observed, showing a predominantly external locus of control. Regarding the awareness of the crime, he indicates that he limited himself to following orders received. He recognizes the duress carried out by the institution, manages to empathize with the victims, but cognitive emphasis is still observed in his discourse. 33-Jorge Marín Jiménez: His psychosocial report establishes that he lacks awareness of the crime and the damage and harm caused, and by not recognizing the crime, he does not manage to incorporate the image of the victim nor manage to empathize with them. And he does not give an account of needs for change. *It is indicated that the applicant 34 would be Lander Mickel Uriarte Burotto, regarding whom no pronouncements are made, since the Supreme Court granted him the benefit of parole on October 11.

Source: latercera.cl, October 29, 2018

The 15 convicted of human rights violations who are requesting parole

Among the names are the former operational chief of the CNI, Álvaro Corbalán, and Carlos Herrera Jiménez, author of the assassination of Tucapel Jiménez. After a former military officer filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (TC) for not being included in the list of applicants for parole, the Gendarmerie released the names of the 15 convicted of human rights violations who are requesting this measure, as revealed by Radio Bío Bío.

Among them, the figure of Álvaro Corbalán stands out, former operational chief of the CNI, author of the homicide of Juan Alegría Mundaca, a crime for which he is serving a life sentence. Also seeking to access this benefit is Carlos Herrera Jiménez, material author of the assassination of union leader Tucapel Jiménez in 1982.

Another one who is part of this list is "El Fanta," Miguel Estay Reyno, involved in the death of four teachers in the so-called "degollados case."

Check the list here

Parole applicants Carlos Enrique Blanco Plummer Ramón Pedro Cáceres Jorquera Álvaro Julio Federico Corbalán Castilla Hernán Alejandro de la Fuente Irribarra Miguel Arturo Estay Reyno Carlos Alberto Fernando Herrera Jiménez Adolfo Nicolás Lapostol Sprovera Jorge Segundo Marín Jiménez Pablo Abelardo Martínez Latorre Jorge Anibal Osses Novoa Rodrigo Pérez Martínez José Andrés Torres Riquelme Juan Artemio Valderrama Molina Erasmo Francisco Vega Sobarzo Juan Iván Vidal Ogueta

Source: t13.cl, October 10, 2019