Applying a criterion of legal procedure, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled against the Bishopric of Punta Arenas by rejecting an appeal for cassation on the merits that sought to annul the statute of limitations—granted by the Punta Arenas Court of Appeals—for three former CNI agents: General (R) Gonzalo Jara and non-commissioned officers (R) Humberto Olmedo and Milton Muñoz, who were prosecuted as authors of the explosive attack on the Fátima parish that occurred on October 6, 1984.

The plaintiff lawyer, Luis Díaz Coñuecar, based his appeal on the preeminence of international law over local law, arguing that it was a crime against humanity as it was a reprisal for the protests against Augusto Pinochet.

However, the Criminal Chamber did not enter into an analysis of the merits, but rather dismissed the appeal due to a failure to comply with criminal procedural requirements. Thus, the attack that destroyed the parish remained without sanction, as no further appeal is possible against the Criminal Chamber's resolution.

The attack occurred shortly after the so-called "Puntarenazo," with which the population of Punta Arenas protested against the dictator's visit. The demonstration was linked to the period of large street protests against the dictatorship, which left dozens dead in several cities, especially in Santiago.

Source: Lanacion.cl, October 9, 2007

Attack against Catholic Temple to Remain Unpunished

On other occasions, I have called attention to the aggressions of the Pinochet dictatorship against the country's Catholics. Perhaps it was logical to expect that the military regime would consider the followers of a religious ideology based on piety, solidarity, and social justice to be enemies.

A significant case of this stance against Catholics was the attack of October 6, 1984. That day, a group of military personnel placed a bomb in the Fátima Temple of Punta Arenas, destroying it. The military intended to blame left-wing groups for the attack.

The stratagem failed them. The bomb exploded prematurely, causing the death of one of the anti-patriots (Lieutenant Patricio Contreras Martínez). The other participants in the attack (General Gonzalo Jara Padilla and non-commissioned officers (r) Humberto Olmedo Álvarez and Milton Muñoz Campos) will never pay for this crime, as the Supreme Court of Chile, in a ruling that once again calls into question the progress of justice regarding human rights trials and subordination to international legislation, has just dismissed the case, alleging its statute of limitations (despite the international norm that crimes of terrorism cannot be subject to statutes of limitations). It seems the judges have considered it sufficient punishment that one of the cowards lost his life. The news I share below was published today in the newspaper La Prensa Austral of Punta Arenas. Supreme Court Put an End to Fátima Case [Santiago/Punta Arenas, Chile]. After 23 years. Supreme Court put an end to the Fátima case. The country's highest court rejected as inadmissible an appeal for cassation filed by the Bishopric's lawyer, the plaintiff in the case. They applied the statute of limitations regarding the case brought against three military personnel who were prosecuted for terrorist conduct. Following the dismissal of the former Army members, the bombing attack was closed definitively without culprits. The Supreme Court of Justice put an end to the criminal proceedings opened in October 1984 regarding the tragic bombing that destroyed the Fátima temple in Punta Arenas and cost the life of Army Lieutenant Patricio Contreras Martínez. As of yesterday, the Criminal Chamber confirmed the statute of limitations in the investigation against General (r) Gonzalo Jara Padilla and non-commissioned officers (r) Humberto Olmedo Álvarez and Milton Muñoz Campos, who were being prosecuted for violation of Law 18.314 on terrorist conduct for placing a bomb in the aforementioned Catholic parish. In a unanimous ruling, ministers Alberto Chaigneau (president and drafter), Nibaldo Segura, Jaime Rodríguez, Rubén Ballesteros, and Hugo Dolmestch rejected the appeal for cassation presented by the Bishopric's plaintiff lawyer, Luis Díaz Coñuecar. In this way, the ruling of the Court of Appeals of this city, which on January 23 applied the statute of limitations to the criminal action, was fully confirmed. This means that responsibility for the investigated events is totally and absolutely extinguished regarding the three former military personnel prosecuted in the case, a resolution that meant—at the beginning of last year—they remained detained in Army facilities in Punta Arenas. "Historic Day" In the opinion of one of the defense lawyers, Daniel Mackinnon, yesterday, October 8, was a historic day, as 23 years ago, on a day like yesterday, the criminal process for the bombing of the Fátima temple was formally initiated in Punta Arenas. From a professional point of view, Mackinnon expressed his full satisfaction with the work carried out during the year and a half he was responsible for defending the three former uniformed officers. "It was arduous and meticulous teamwork (alluding to the work carried out jointly with his colleague Dagoberto Arias), being able to demonstrate in the end that the participation of our defendants was reduced to zero." The lawyer highlighted that it is a consistent ruling, of 15 considerations, clearly establishing that the appeal for cassation promoted by the plaintiff was poorly filed, as it did not contain any of the seven grounds for nullity required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The hearing of the case—before the Supreme Court—took place last Wednesday, September 26, with lawyers Luis Díaz Coñuecar participating in the arguments for the plaintiff, and professionals Daniel Mackinnon and Dagoberto Arias for the defendants. The plaintiff lawyer attempted to reverse the decision of the Punta Arenas Court of Appeals, invoking for that purpose international conventions and treaties, which maintain that crimes against humanity are imprescriptible and not subject to amnesty. The counterpart, meanwhile, argued that the statute of limitations was fully applicable in this case. The statute of limitations for this case, after little more than two decades of investigation, was agreed upon at the local level—in January of this year—with the votes of ministers Hugo Faúndez and Virginia Bravo. A third minister, María Isabel San Martín, did not share that view, leaning in favor of what was resolved by the presiding minister Renato Campos, who denied the request made by the defense of the defendants. Operative Part After 9 months since the previous ruling, as of yesterday, the magistrates of the Supreme Court considered that the appeal for cassation filed by the Bishopric is not the way to appeal against the Punta Arenas sentence, since it is an appeal of strict law. "As can be observed, it is evident that the appellant does not indicate or presuppose any of the seven exhaustive grounds established by article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the only path that allows for the filing of an appeal for cassation on the merits in criminal matters," the ruling states. It adds: "That, given the failure to comply with an obligation that corresponded exclusively to the appellant to observe, regarding specifying concretely the ground or grounds invoked for the acceptance of the appeal, to then develop it and link it with the legal norms considered infringed, which was not fulfilled; given the insufficiency of its explanation and generic civil citation, it prevents this Court from entering into an analysis of its admissibility, as it would imply that these judges would have to assume the ground and the foundations of the appeal, which does not allow for determining, with full precision, in what the error of law consisted, which will lead to its rejection." After this sentence, which exonerates the three former military personnel prosecuted in the case, the attack remains without culprits.

Source: atinachile.cl, October 9, 2007