The Comando Conjunto (Joint Command) was a group of agents from the intelligence departments of the SIFA and other related departments, predominantly those from the FACH, which dedicated itself exclusively to the persecution, repression, torture, and physical elimination of people they viewed as enemies of the regime.

They disputed with the DINA over the detention of individuals. To date, the murder of at least 12 people and the torture of dozens of detainees by the Comando Conjunto have been determined. In 1984, the existence of the Comando Conjunto was revealed by the confession of former agent and FACH corporal Andrés Valenzuela Morales.

Investigating Judge Carlos Cerda managed to identify the existence of the command and the names of its main leaders. After nearly a year of investigation, Judge Cerda issued indictments for 40 people for their participation in the disappearance of twelve PC militants, and also gathered evidence clarifying the fate of another 27 forcibly disappeared persons.

Among those accused as authors of illicit association are General Gustavo Leigh, FACH General Mario Vivero Avila, Carabineros Major Julio Benimelli Ruiz, and FACH group commanders Luis Campos Poblete and Carlos Madrid Haiden.

The following agents were declared accomplices to illegitimate deprivation of liberty and authors of illicit association: Carabineros Lieutenant Colonel German Esquivel Caballero; Captain Manuel Agustin Muñoz Gamboa; FACH Colonel Edgar Ceballos Jones; FACH reserve commander Jorge Cobos Manriquez; Carabineros General Ruben Romero Gormaz; FACH General Enrique Ruiz Bunguer; FACH Colonel Juan Saavedra Loyola; and squadron commanders Roberto Fuentes Morrison and German Pimentel Ceballos.

Navy First Lieutenant Daniel Gimpert was also indicted.

Source: Revista Análisis No. 226

Mr. Piñera, my mother filed a writ of amparo for my disappeared father. They never accepted it.

In June 1976, my father was kidnapped for the first time in broad daylight. A squadron of military personnel and civilians, now known as the Comando Conjunto. I was six years old. They shot him in the chest and took him away in a car, just like thousands of other Chileans.

My mother, who was pregnant, was beaten and thrown onto the pavement while screaming for help. As soon as she could, she got up and went straight to the Courts of Justice, and installed herself in front of the office of the President of the Supreme Court, running the risk of being detained herself.

She demanded immediate attention: “To the President of the Honorable Supreme Court, Dr. José María Eyzaguirre. Verónica Antequera Vergara, primary education graduate, married, residing at Calle Nueva No. 10803, Apt. 203, Paradero 24 de La Florida, identity card No. 5,897,429, to the President, with all due respect, I state: That I come to request an audience with the President, in order to explain the situation of my husband, Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos, primary education teacher, 27 years old, of my same address, who was detained in the manner I proceed to detail.

Today, June 14, at 10 in the morning, we had left our home and were walking along a street in the sector called María Elena. Upon reaching the intersection of that street with Unión, a light blue Renoleta caught up to us, from which two young individuals got out and attempted to detain my husband.

As he asked for the reason for the detention, they began to beat him. Then they fired a shot. I saw my husband shrink and saw them push him into the vehicle, which sped away. I harbor the moral certainty that this detention could only have come from the security forces operating under the acronym DINA (National Intelligence Directorate).

Evidently, no legal norm of any kind has been respected. As reprehensible as all this may be, what afflicts me most at this moment is the whereabouts of my husband and the condition he may be in. It is for this reason that I wish to request that the President hear me, in order to be able to provide all the background information that may be relevant, as I am in a position to do so as an eyewitness to the event.

I also wish for the President to make use of the powers conferred upon him by Art. 7 of Supreme Decree 187 and travel to the Cuatro Álamos Camp and see how to interview the detainee and verify that, regarding him, all the guarantees established by current regulations are being met.” The President of the Supreme Court watched for hours as this pregnant woman remained seated before his office, prepared to be taken away by force if he did not attend to her.

Exhausted by this image, he finally listened to her. He must have been shocked by the woman's account, as he decided to communicate in her presence with Colonel Manuel Contreras to investigate if the DINA had detained him.

My mother listened anxiously to the conversation. Colonel Contreras replied that his service had not detained anyone with the characteristics of Manuel Guerrero. My mother filed the writ of amparo before the Santiago Court of Appeals (docket No. 523-76) on June 14, 1976.

This, as was the custom of the time, was rejected. Why, Mr. Piñera, was yours accepted when you were accused of fraud at the Banco de Talca, and then you were acquitted? On the 18th of the same month—that is, while my father was being tortured in what we now know was the “La Firma” barracks on Calle Dieciocho—by confidential official letter No. 2871, the Minister of the Interior, General Raúl Benavides Escobar, informed the court: “In response to the referenced official letter, I comply with informing Your Honor that the person indicated below is not detained by order of this Ministry: Guerrero Ceballos, Manuel Leonidas.” While we continued searching frantically for my father in hospitals, detention centers, and the morgue, the Supreme Court simply would not rule, but my mother did not give up, despite the fact that people continued to be detained: “Honorable Court. Verónica Antequera Vergara, already identified, in the amparo proceedings in favor of my husband Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos, to Your Honor, with all due respect, I state: That in the document in which I filed the appeal, I requested that a report be requested from the Minister of the Interior, the National Detainee Service (SENDET), and the Minister of Justice. Practically 10 days have passed without any response having been received to date. Therefore, I pray that Your Honor order the aforementioned official letters to be reiterated. Furthermore: I pray that Your Honor keep in mind that the license plate of the vehicle in which my husband's captors were traveling is JK 63.” What was the Court waiting for, if it already had a response? For enough time to pass to succeed in breaking my father under torture? Did you know, Mr. Piñera, that these things happened daily in Chile? Why did you receive different treatment? My father was tortured at the Carabineros Hospital of Chile and then transferred to the Cuatro Álamos prison camp—under the charge of the DINA, that is, the Ministry of the Interior—and then to Tres Álamos. Only on June 25, 1976, did the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, composed of Ministers Efrén Araya, MARCOS LIBEDINSKY—yes, the one who until not long ago was President of the Supreme Court—and the presiding lawyer Alberto Novoa, issue the following sentence: “Attending to the merit of the background information, and especially what was reported by the Minister of the Interior, on page 5, and also having seen the provisions of Article 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the writ of amparo filed on page 1 by Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos is rejected.” According to this resolution, my father had never been detained, much less tortured, but it turns out that on that very same June 25, he was already recognized as a prisoner in Tres Álamos! Does it not seem offensive to you, Mr. Piñera, that you claim your writ of amparo was accepted, when thousands of us had ours rejected during the same period, and that meant death for our relatives? We visited my father on Sunday, June 27, and immediately on Monday, June 28, my mother returned to the Court: “Honorable Court. Verónica Antequera Vergara, already identified, in the amparo proceedings in favor of my husband Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos, to Your Honor, with all due respect, I state: That the Honorable Court of Appeals of Santiago, on the 25th of this current month of June, rejected the filed writ of amparo. The Honorable Court based this on a report from the Minister of the Interior, dated the 18th of this same month, where it was declared that the person for whom amparo was sought was not detained by order of said Ministry. The appealed ruling and its antecedent—the Ministry's report—absolutely disregard the truth of the facts and constitute an unqualifiable denial of justice. The reality is the following: my husband was detained, as already stated, on the 14th of this current month of June, at 10 in the morning, at the intersection of María Elena and La Unión streets, which belong to the Paradero 24 sector of La Florida. In that place, he was shot by the personnel who were in charge of the detention. The bullet entered through the right side, passed through the lung and heart area, in the direction of the left armpit, without exiting. For more details, the bullet is .38 caliber. Subsequently, the bullet has begun to descend toward the left nipple. All this was happening on Monday, June 14, at the precise moments when the Organization of American States was discussing the issue of Human Rights in our capital. Which the following day would provoke the enthusiastic headline in Ultimas Noticias: ‘And justice was done.’ The fact is that my husband, wounded in the manner and circumstances I have already described, was beaten into the security personnel's Renoleta and blindfolded with “scotch” tape over his eyes and mouth. He was placed—inside the car—under a seat. He was also beaten and handcuffed. Carried in this way, he was taken to an unknown place, where they began to strip him and lay him on an iron cot, called a “grill,” where electricity was applied to his entire body. Apparently, they drugged him with “pentothal.” At the same time, threats were frequent, telling him that “something could happen to him,” and that “an accident is always possible.” There was also no lack of threats against his wife—5 months pregnant—and his small 6-year-old son. This treatment continued throughout the afternoon of Monday, June 14. He was not provided with any medical attention during these long hours; on the contrary, the beatings continued and my husband kept bleeding. On the night of that same Monday, the 14th, he was taken to a hospital facility, which he does not know. He was admitted under another name and was ordered not to speak. In said facility, he received medical attention. The doctors reached the conclusion that the bullet could not be removed at that moment, but that they had to wait for the projectile to surface in order to be able to act under proper conditions. Countless X-rays were also taken of him. All this did not mean that the treatment was adequate. In reality, the mistreatment continued, even in these circumstances. They would rip out the tube connected to the IV, and every time he was moved from room to room, they would cover his face. Possibly, so that he would not be recognized and would not realize the state he was in. Furthermore, they kept reminding him of the possibility of an “accident.” He continued in this hospital place until Friday, June 18 of this current month. That day—in the afternoon—he was transferred to the “Cuatro Álamos” Camp. It was the same day that the Ministry of the Interior informed the Honorable Court of Appeals that he was not detained, which the Honorable Court would consider the decisive argument to deny the appeal. In the Cuatro Álamos Camp, he remained incommunicado for 7 days. During those days, he was the only detainee, but he was able to receive medical attention. On Friday, June 25, the same day that the Honorable Court of Appeals denied the writ of amparo, he was forced to get up and was taken to Tres Álamos. In said camp, I have been able to visit him, just as he has received visits from his parents and in-laws. The extraordinary thing about the case is that, after everything that has happened, he is forced to live the normal life of a normal detainee, as if nothing had happened. I received notice that he was detained in Tres Álamos on Saturday, June 26, at noon. From the background information presented, it is deduced that not even the slightest semblance of legality has been met. Decree Law 1009 is very clear. In its Article 1, it declares that security forces shall be obliged to communicate the detention “within a period of 48 hours.” There is no need to repeat the background information already given to recognize that this requirement has not been met. Likewise, the aforementioned Art. 1 of the same DL 1009 declares that incommunicado detention “may not last more than 5 days.” This provision has also been infringed. Supreme Decree 187, of January 28 of this year, provides in its Art. 3 all the specifications that the detention order must contain. None of this has been complied with in my husband's case. Therefore, I pray that Your Honor revoke the ruling of the Honorable Court of Appeals and order the immediate release of my husband, Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos, since, according to information from the Minister of the Interior himself, there is no detention order against him. It is also appropriate for the Honorable Court to order a visit by one of its members to the aforementioned Tres Álamos camp, to verify the accuracy of what is stated here and to check the delicate state of health of the person for whom amparo is sought. I pray that Your Honor order the case files to be sent to the Criminal Justice system, to make effective the responsibilities of Art. 1 of DL 1009, regarding illegitimate coercion.” My father remained a prisoner in Tres Álamos, with the bullet still in his body, and only on June 30, 1976, did the Supreme Court request, through Official Letter No. 20.082: “To begin to hear the appeal, let an official letter be sent to the Minister of the Interior so that he may report if Manuel Leonidas Guerrero Ceballos is detained in the Tres Álamos Camp, as is reported in the document on pages 9 and 10, a photostatic copy of which will be sent to him.” This authority, RAUL BENAVIDES ESCOBAR, then Minister of the Interior, the same one who had previously officially stated that my father was not detained, reported by confidential official letter No. 3120, of July 5, 1976: “In response to the referenced official letter, I comply with informing Your Honor that by Exempt Decree of this Ministry, issued in the use of the power conferred upon me by DL No. 228, in relation to Article 72, No. 17, of the Political Constitution of the State, the detention of the person indicated below was ordered, confining him in the place mentioned: Guerrero Ceballos, Manuel Leonidas; His arrest was ordered in the Cuatro Álamos Detainee Camp, according to E.D. No. 2120, of June 18, 1976. He is currently in the Tres Álamos Detainee Camp, where he was transferred according to E.D. No. 2124, dated June 23, 1976.” That is to say, what was previously denied was recognized; however, my father's detention is reported as June 18, when in fact it had occurred 4 days earlier. As a result of this new report from the Minister of the Interior, on July 12, 1976, the Supreme Court, ruling on the appeal, issued the following sentence: “With the merit of the report from the Ministry of the Interior on page 12, the appealed resolution is confirmed,” by ministers M. Eduardo Ortiz, Octavio Ramirez M., Marcos Aburto O., Estanislao Zuñiga C., and presiding lawyer Julio Fabres. In concrete terms, Mr. Piñera, this resolution meant that the Chilean courts rejected the filed writ of amparo, despite all the background information on illegality and torture made known. For this reason, my mother insisted with a Motion for Reconsideration that she presented on July 16, 1976: “I come to file a motion for reconsideration against the resolution of this Honorable Court, which declares the Writ of Amparo inadmissible, thus confirming the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals. The seriousness of this resolution is that it confirms a resolution pronounced considering the report of the Minister of the Interior, on page 5, which stated that the person for whom amparo was sought was not detained by order of that Ministry. However, in the appeal files, this Petitioner had expressed the account of facts that clearly established that her spouse had been illegally detained on the street, where he was also shot. The information from the Minister of the Interior was therefore very curious, but more than that, extremely serious, as it made us fear at times that the detainee might not appear, perhaps for how long. You will understand how serious it seems to me, then, that the Honorable Court rejects the writ of amparo, basing itself on this report, which, in addition to not being truthful as could be verified later by a subsequent report from the same Minister, entered into confirming a flagrant illegality, which is that of detention without any order, as well as incommunicado detention beyond the 5 days established by DL 1009, and finally, the injuries inflicted due to the gunshot wound. What has been exposed, made known in detail by this petitioner, both to the Honorable Court and to this Honorable Court, constitute crimes typified and sanctioned by our legislation, for which they should be investigated thoroughly, even more so if the life of a person was at stake, who fortunately was able to emerge unscathed after being subjected to barbaric treatment, a matter also sanctioned by our legislation. It cannot but leave me perplexed, then, the resolution of the Honorable Court, if it considers that it has taken the minimum knowledge of the facts that motivated the writ of amparo, and its appeal, and, on the other hand, the response of the Minister of the Interior that he was not detained. Although, at the time this case was seen, the Honorable Court could have known of the subsequent report from the Minister of the Interior that accounts for 2 E.D.s against the person for whom amparo was sought, one that establishes his detention dated June 18, 1976, and another that establishes his transfer to Tres Álamos dated June 23, 1976, such reports only leave two facts established: a) The illegality of the detention, since the events occurred on the 14th and not the 18th, and the fact that there was no E.D. against him means nothing more and nothing less than that he was detained without an order, and kept in a place that is not official. A very serious situation is thus reiterated, which this Honorable Court should consider in its real and tragic significance, that a person can even lose their life and their detention not be recognized. b) The lack of truthfulness of the second report, also regarding the 2 E.D.s, because if any minister of this Honorable Court, in his concern to watch over the current legality, had spoken with the detainee or had constituted himself at the Tres Álamos Camp on the 23rd, he would have been able to verify that such a person was not there, just as the Minister of the Interior asserted on that date. Taking into consideration the whole of the background information, and leaving aside in principle all the serious illegalities committed against the person for whom amparo was sought by the Executive's security services, it is possible to determine that if the Honorable Court had decided to reject the Writ of Amparo, it could not have proceeded to confirm in its entirety the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals, as it had been based on an incorrect report. Therefore, in consideration of what has been exposed, I request this Honorable Court to consider the motion for reconsideration against the resolution of this Honorable Court of July 12, 1976, which confirmed in its entirety the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals, as filed. First, as has been made known, the detainee remained detained and incommunicado for several days without a detention order. Furthermore, the crime of bodily injury was committed against his person. All these facts constitute crimes that are typified and sanctioned by current legislation. With values as important as the life of the detainee at stake, I believe that such facts must be investigated, proceeding to sanction those responsible. I request, consequently, that this Honorable Court remit the background information to the competent criminal court, so that a summary investigation may be instructed for the commission of the crimes denounced.” Notwithstanding all of the above, on July 19, 1976, the Court resolved: “To the main point: the motion for reconsideration is denied. To the secondary point: let the corresponding complaint be formalized.” In my family, we have always believed in justice, we have never committed anything illegal, and we are the first defenders of the Rule of Law. But why do they punish us in this way? They cannot say they did not know. My mother and father risked their lives so that justice would be done, so that the Courts would act. For this reason, it causes me perplexity and indignation, Mr. Piñera, that you boast that justice was functioning, and as proof of your supposed innocence regarding fraud, you present the fact that the Courts accepted your writ of amparo. On the first try! You must be very special. On Monday, June 28, 1976, my father was examined by doctors Alfredo Montiglio Espinger, health advisor to the National Detainee Service, and Dr. Cesáreo Roa Muñoz, of the Carabineros Hospital. Both determined that he should be transferred to the FACH hospital to remove the projectile. Upon his return, he was notified in Tres Álamos that he was detained as a “communist activist.” On July 28, 1976, the President of the Supreme Court, José María Eyzaguirre, carried out his traditional annual visit to the prisons. He also visited the Tres Álamos political prisoner camp. There, he personally met the man for whom he had apparently intervened without result. My father related to him in detail the torture, the references to José Weibel and Luis Maturana, and the secret detention center. Everything. He even requested an investigation for the possible crime of attempted homicide and illegitimate coercion. The following day, the President of the Supreme Court made official the start of the investigation with a detailed account from my father. In it, he said: “From my own experience, I know that there are places of torture that have not been declared and that the disappeared persons being spoken of are in some of them.” The document with the signature of José María Eyzaguirre went to the Military Prosecutor's Office, where the investigation was initiated. The Carabineros Intelligence Directorate was the first to be required to report on the facts. This is how they responded: “On June 13, around 11:00 AM, Manuel Guerrero Ceballos was detained by personnel from the Naval Intelligence Service. His spouse was present. Due to an attempt at resistance by the detainee, a pistol shot accidentally went off from one of the captors, which wounded him in the right side, a bullet ricocheting off the ribs and following a trajectory that finally lodged in the left intercostal side. The detainee was immediately admitted to the Carabineros Hospital, where he was diagnosed with minor injuries, being discharged on June 15 and immediately handed over to the DINA.” The military prosecutor went to the Carabineros Hospital to verify the truthfulness of my father's account. Upon reviewing the admission logs, he found: “Pedro González Rocha, 27 years old, gunshot wound in the right hemithorax. Doctor: Osvaldo Ureta Latorre.” Doctor Osvaldo Ureta Latorre, a Carabineros major, who received my father from the hands of the Comando Conjunto, declared: “I was on duty in the emergency service when, at approximately 2:00 PM, I received a telephone report from the Hospital administration, through which I was informed that a gunshot victim would arrive on his own. I was also ordered to treat the case as confidentially as possible, and not to ask questions. I do not know who the person was who gave me the order, but I think it was the Hospital director personally. I did not ask, as it was an order. The man arrived accompanied by five civilians. One of them, who acted as the leader, approached me and informed me that he was bringing the patient I had been told about. I saw an assistant asking the patient for his address, and as he was reticent to give it, I ordered the assistant not to ask any more questions. The sick man was pale and complaining. I informed Dr. Pazols, the Hospital director, of all this at his home, and he asked me to keep him informed. My decision, based on the exams that were taken of him, was to leave him hospitalized, which I later discussed with Dr. Pazols in his office. By order of the director, I went to look for one of the civilians who was accompanying him and took him to the director's office. I withdrew. Once the director gave his authorization for us to leave him hospitalized, he told me to place him in a room as isolated as possible.” The memories of Doctor Osvaldo Pazols were not...

are the same as those of Dr. Ureta. Colonel Pazols denied having given any instruction to Dr. Ureta before my father’s admission to the hospital. He said that the first information regarding the matter was communicated to his home by the doctor on duty, whose name he did not recall, at approximately 15:30 hours. Pazols declared:

“The doctor on duty informed me that the gunshot victim was a detainee and that his captors had brought him to the hospital. Furthermore, he told me that they had made it known to him that he should maintain confidentiality regarding the wounded man, whose name I never knew.

The wounded man remained in the hospital under observation for several days, being guarded by the captors themselves, who took turns for that purpose. The doctor on duty brought one of the captors to my office, who stated that he was from an intelligence service, identifying himself with a card that accredited him as such. He did not tell me which service he was from.”

“I knew the patient was a detainee because the doctor on duty, I believe Dr. Ureta, informed me as such. But I did not give any order for him to be received. No medical file was made for the patient by my order, due to the confidential nature requested by one of his captors. All of his clinical records were removed by ‘them’.”

The prosecutor decided to visit the Traumatology section on the third floor, where my father declared he had been treated. The fact was ratified by two nurses, a medical assistant, and a service aide, even though there was no record of the admission or discharge of patient “González Rocha” in the section’s books.

However, despite the fact that my father was shackled, guarded, and in a serious state of health, he was attended to by five physicians, among whom was Winston Chinchón, who would later become Minister of Health, who acknowledged having seen him.

With all this information, the military prosecutor returned to request information from the head of the Carabineros Intelligence Directorate, General Rubén Romero Gormaz, who declared by official letter:

“This Intelligence Directorate has information that the citizen Manuel Guerrero Ceballos was detained by the Naval Intelligence Service and that, as a consequence of his detention and due to resistance against his captors, he was wounded by gunfire, which is why the cooperation of the Carabineros Hospital was requested by this service, which was provided in a timely manner.

Subsequently, and within the third day, that is to say, June 17, 1976, at the request of the same SIN, the detainee was placed at the disposal of the DINA, in accordance with Secret Order No. 35-F-330, of November 22, 1975, from the Ministries of the Interior and National Defense.”

Here is the key. General Romero gave the true reason why he handed over my father: the existence of Secret Order No. 35-F-330, dated November 22, 1976, issued by the Ministries of the Interior and Defense, which left the DINA as the only service with the authority to detain, hold incommunicado, and maintain secret detention centers.

It was that order that Colonel Manuel Contreras invoked to obtain the handover of my father. It was that secret order that caused the evacuation of the prisoner camp at the Colina Air Base.

The official letter also pointed out the charges brought against my father to order his detention: “Extremist belonging to the PC [Communist Party]. Secretary General of the Communist Youth. Records trips to Russia and the German Democratic Republic for political indoctrination courses. He is responsible for the PC’s pamphlet campaign, which he directed from clandestinity.”

There is not a single mention of the existence of weapons. My father never had any.

The investigation carried out by the Military Prosecutor’s Office managed to identify one of the men who participated in my father’s transfer: he was a Carabineros officer whose Tipcar [identification card] had the number 1644. That Tipcar belonged to Lieutenant Manuel Agustín Muñoz Gamboa, the same man who would participate in my father’s assassination in 1985, the “Lolo Muñoz.”

At that moment, the Naval Prosecutor’s Office of Valparaíso requested the transfer of the investigation, as its Intelligence Service was responsible for my father’s detention. The request was accepted.

Therefore, on November 7, 1976, my father was transferred from the Tres Álamos Camp to an unknown location. He experienced forced disappearance once again. That same day, the Ministry of the Interior had granted my father his freedom along with 129 other prisoners.

We had the list of those released; we went to look for him at Tres Álamos, but he was no longer there; no one knew where they had taken him. This was his second detention and forced disappearance, this time for having told the truth about what they had done to him.

We searched for him everywhere again. Now there were three of us, because on October 1, 1976, while my father remained a prisoner, my sister América had been born, who to this day cannot stand fireworks, because from my mother’s womb she heard the gunshot when they detained my father on June 14, 1976.

That October 1, 1976, a military guard told my father: “You’re a father again, you idiot, it was a girl.”

After exasperating days of searching, an anonymous call alerted us that my father might be at the Puchuncaví Prisoner Camp, near Valparaíso.

We traveled there while we watched buses arrive, packed with former political prisoners who had been released. When we arrived, there was no one left at the Prisoner Camp, only the guards. We stood in front of the gate and saw a jeep with naval officers leaving quickly.

In desperation, my mother, with one-month-old América in her arms and me, six years old, by her hand, together with my maternal grandmother, stopped us in the middle of the road the jeep had to take. “We will not leave without your father, otherwise we might as well all die,” she said.

The jeep braked at high speed in front of this hopeless family; we ran to the back of the vehicle, and like a miracle, there was my father, emaciated, guarded by armed marines.

They put us all in the vehicle and took us as detainees to the Fuerte Silva Palma in Valparaíso. We had found him, we were together again, but we did not know what would happen to all of us.

Meanwhile, the owner of Tipcar No. 1644 was called to testify before the naval judge who continued the investigation that had originated from the complaints my father made to the President of the Supreme Court. “Lolo Muñoz” gave his address as Calle Dieciocho No. 229, which is the location of “La Firma” where they held my father in ’76 and later in ’85, and stated:

“One day that I do not remember, in compliance with instructions from my General Rubén Romero, I received from Naval Intelligence officials the detainee Manuel Guerrero Ceballos, for the purpose of transferring him to the Carabineros Hospital, given that he was injured.

He was kept there for about three days, with the respective surveillance, until I received an order from my General to the effect that I should transfer him to the ‘Tres Álamos’ detention camp and hand him over to DINA personnel.”

That is where the investigation ended. The final report signed by Vice Admiral Jorge Paredes Wetzer, naval judge, and Frigate Captain Enrique Campusano Palacios, naval auditor, states: “This case is temporarily dismissed due to insufficient evidence to accuse a specific person as the author, accomplice, or accessory to the investigated facts.” In other words, neither the civil courts nor the military justice system considered that the detention and torture my father experienced had any perpetrators.

To this day, no one is serving a sentence for what happened to him.

However, in the office of the President of the Supreme Court, José María Eyzaguirre, remained my father’s sworn statement in which he says: “My captors, during the interrogation with torture, indicated that they had detained and had in their power Luis Emilio Maturana González, a young teacher, detained and forcibly disappeared since June 8, 1976, in Santiago.” The effort my father made to try to rescue Luis Maturana alive was useless.

At the “La Firma” barracks, Maturana, along with René Orellana, were tortured without limit, until death, without anyone informed attempting to prevent it. Nor did the Courts of Justice prevent it, despite the writs of amparo [habeas corpus] that their relatives had filed.

As for us—my mother, maternal grandmother, and my sister América—after spending two days and one night in a dungeon at Fuerte Silva Palma, being victims of political imprisonment and torture, they set us free.

My sister and I are 2 of the hundred-plus children who appear as victims of political imprisonment and torture in the Valech Report. I was six years old and my sister was one month old. What do you think of this, Mr. Piñera? Why is it that for you the courts did act during the dictatorship and for us they did not?

My father was only “released” on November 19, under conditions where he was the accuser of abuses and illegalities. Days later, after my father, already free, filed his complaint in every instance he could, we went into exile heading to Sweden and Hungary.

We were there until 1982, which is when we returned, with my father’s hope that he could contribute to the struggle of the Chilean people to recover democracy. In exile, my parents separated; however, we always remained very close.

In Budapest, my father met his new partner, Owana Madera, with whom he would face as a couple the new reality that was looming upon his return to Chile. Once again, persecution and death for thinking differently.

Despite everything experienced, I feel proud to have a family whose dedication and sacrifice made it possible to recover democracy. As imperfect as it may be, we recovered it. And it must be deepened, reconquered for the majority.

But the price we paid was high, very high. In our case, the throat-slitting of my father in 1985. We also filed protection and amparo appeals during the kidnapping of which he was once again a victim on public roads in March of that fateful year. None of those appeals were accepted. Why were they for you, Mr. Piñera?

Your acquittal by the Supreme Court does not prove that the Courts of Justice functioned. Quite the contrary. It only proves that you were a trusted man of the dictatorship’s regime of terror; it in no case proves your innocence.

Tell that to someone else, Mr. Piñera. You do not qualify ethically to be President of our country. Not even as a candidate of the right, which would do well to look at the truth of the recent past, acknowledge it, and change. You are dirty, Mr. Piñera. Do not sell us any more euphemisms that offend our dignity.

Without further ado, I greet you, Manuel Guerrero Antequera Son of a Political Execution Victim Councilman of Ñuñoa

Source: http://www.g80.cl, July 29, 2009

Justice prosecutes former agents of the Joint Command for the qualified kidnapping of a PC member

The visiting minister of the Santiago Court of Appeals, Leopoldo Llanos, issued the indictment of former members of the so-called Joint Command for their responsibility in the crimes of illicit association and the qualified homicide of Nicolás López Suárez, perpetrated on July 30, 1976, in Santiago.

In the resolution—issued on Friday, November 28—Minister Llanos submitted to prosecution for their responsibility in both crimes: Enrique Ruiz Bunger, Antonio Quiros Reyes, Juan Saavedra Loyola, Daniel Luis Guimpert Corvalán, Manuel Agustín Muñoz Gamboa, César Palma Ramírez, Raúl González Fernández, Viviana Ugarte Sandoval, Juan Aravena Hurtubia, Ernesto Lobos Gálvez, and Miguel Arturo Estay Reyno.

According to the background information collected in the process, the following facts were proven:

“During the years 1975 and 1976, a repressive organization functioned—called the ‘Intelligence Community’ and known later as the ‘Joint Command’—formed by members of different branches of the Armed Forces and Carabineros, and also by some civilians who were former members of the anti-Marxist group called ‘Patria y Libertad.’ Said repressive organization was constituted by the decision of the Intelligence Directorates of the Armed Forces and Carabineros, whose headquarters were installed in a building located at Calle Juan Antonio Ríos No. 6 in Santiago Centro (JAR 6), where the Intelligence Directorates of the Air Force (DIFA), the Army (DINE), the Navy (SIN), and the Carabineros (SICAR) were located”;

“The ‘La Firma’ barracks functioned until December 1976 and corresponds to an old building with several dependencies, some of which were offices, others interrogation rooms, and others, dungeons. Some of said dependencies had black and white tiled floors.

Furthermore, the operational agents who were there used, to go out and detain people, several vehicles, among them a yellow Chevy Nova automobile”;

“The heads of said barracks were Navy Lieutenant Daniel Luis Guimpert Corvalán, who in turn depended on Commander Sergio Barra von Kretschman, director of the S.I.N.; FACH Lieutenant Roberto Fuentes Morrison, who depended on FACH Commander Juan Saavedra Loyola, and he in turn, on the director of the DIFA, Freddy Enrique Ruiz Bunger; and Carabineros Lieutenant Manuel Agustín Muñoz Gamboa, who in turn was a subordinate of the Captain of that corps Germán Esquivel Caballero, with the head of the Carabineros intelligence area being Colonel Rubén Romero Gormaz”;

“From the second semester of 1976, both the JJ.CC. [Communist Youth] and the P.C. [Communist Party] had an internal leadership (within the country), with different commissions that carried out their functions in specific fronts, such as the union front.

One of the members of said union commission was Nicolás López Suárez, his contact with the Party being Juan Gianelly Company, who had been detained—and was missing—since July 26, 1976. As a security measure, and as a result of the detention of militants of the Party and the Communist Youth at that time, López Suárez moved to live from his home in the Providencia commune—where he lived with his spouse Juana Muñoz Tapia—to Calle República No. 72, Santiago Centro, the home of his nephew Juan Montalván López, who in turn worked as a waiter at the Restaurant ‘Establecimientos Carrera,’ located at Avenida Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins No. 2167, and who collaborated with the clandestine work of the Communist Party, with the aforementioned establishment being used as a ‘mailbox.’ On July 30, 1976, at the aforementioned restaurant, Nicolás López met for lunch with Anita Altamirano Aravena, wife of Juan Gianelly Company, around 12:30 hours, confiding to his nephew Montalván López that he was being followed and that he wanted to speak with him once he left. Likewise, two individuals arrived at the establishment and sat near Nicolás López and Anita Altamirano. One was tall, blond, and solid, around forty years old, and the other short and dark-skinned, with wavy hair and about thirty-five years old, who had already been in the restaurant before and who began to watch Nicolás López and his companion. While his nephew went to change clothes to, once his shift ended, meet to talk with Nicolás López, when he left the establishment at approximately 14:00 hours, he and his companion were no longer in the place, nor were the individuals who were watching him. According to Anita Altamirano and some witnesses, upon leaving the restaurant, López left the woman in a taxi at the same corner of the establishment. His nephew later recognized in the photographs shown to him Roberto Fuentes Morrison, alias ‘Wally,’ as one of the people who was following Nicolás López and who, on the day of his disappearance, was watching him inside the restaurant. Likewise, Anita Alvarado pointed out that one of the people she saw in the restaurant on the day of the events was Fuentes Morrison, whom she knew from before. From the moment of Nicolás López’s disappearance, he has not contacted his relatives, there is no record of him leaving the country, nor is his death confirmed.”

Source: El Clarín, December 1, 2014

Twelve members of the Joint Command prosecuted for the disappearances of Nicomedes Toro and Raúl Montoya

The minister in extraordinary visitation of the Santiago Court of Appeals for human rights violation cases, Leopoldo Llanos, issued an indictment in the investigation he is conducting for the crimes of qualified kidnapping and illicit association in the cases of the forcibly disappeared Nicomedes Toro Bravo and Raúl Montoya Vilchez.

In the resolution, Minister Llanos indicted former members of the so-called Joint Command: Enrique Ruiz Bunguer, Antonio Quiros Reyes, Juan Saavedra Loyola, Daniel Guimpert Corvalán, Manuel Muñoz Gamboa, César Palma Ramírez, Raúl González Fernández, Viviana Ugarte Sandoval, Juan Aravena Hurtuvia, Ernesto Lobos Gálvez, Miguel Estay Reyno, and Otto Trujillo Miranda.

According to the background information collected in the case, the following facts were established:

a) That during the years 1975 and 1976, a repressive organization functioned—called the “Intelligence Community” and known later as the “Joint Command”—formed by members of different branches of the Armed Forces and Carabineros, and also by some civilians who were former members of the anti-Marxist group called “Patria y Libertad.” Said repressive organization was constituted by the decision of the Intelligence Directorates of the Armed Forces and Carabineros, whose headquarters were installed in a building located at Calle Juan Antonio Ríos No. 6 in Santiago Centro (JAR 6), where the Intelligence Directorates of the Air Force (DIFA), the Army (DINE), the Navy (SIN), and the Carabineros (SICAR) were located.

b) Operationally, the aforementioned repressive organization functioned in clandestine detention and torture centers, called “Nido 20” (located in the sector of Paradero 20 of Gran Avenida) and “Nido 18” (located in the sector of Paradero 18 of Vicuña Mackenna); and subsequently, from October or November 1975, in “Remo 0,” located inside the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Regiment of Colina of the Chilean Air Force (hereinafter, FACH).

Finally, the operational agents moved from this last place—with the exclusion of the Army members, who withdrew from the organization—at the beginning of 1976, to the “La Firma” barracks, located on Calle 18 de Septiembre in Santiago Centro, near number 200, in the building of the former newspaper “El Clarín.” c) In all the clandestine detention centers mentioned above, torture was inflicted on the detainees, some of whom died as a result of it; or they were executed by the agents, who made their bodies disappear.

d) The “La Firma” barracks functioned until December 1976 and corresponds to an old building with several dependencies, some of which were offices, others interrogation rooms, and others, dungeons. Some of said dependencies had black and white tiled floors.

Furthermore, the operational agents who were there used, to go out and detain people, several vehicles, among them a yellow Chevy Nova automobile and two Peugeot 404 model automobiles.

e) The heads of said barracks were Navy Lieutenant Daniel Luis Guimpert Corvalán, who in turn depended on Commander Sergio Barra von Kretschman, director of the S.I.N.; FACH Lieutenant Roberto Fuentes Morrison, who depended on FACH Commander Juan Saavedra Loyola, and he in turn, on the director of the DIFA, Freddy Enrique Ruiz Bunger; and Carabineros Lieutenant Manuel Agustín Muñoz Gamboa, who in turn was a subordinate of the Captain of that corps Germán Esquivel Caballero, with the head of the Carabineros intelligence area being Colonel Rubén Romero Gormaz.

f) Both Guimpert Corvalán, Fuentes Morrison, and Muñoz Gamboa directed groups of subordinates who carried out operational tasks, detaining people to transfer them to the aforementioned facility, where they were interrogated under torture, as noted above.

g) From the end of 1975, and throughout the year 1976, the repressive activity of the aforementioned organization was directed especially against the clandestine structure of the Communist Youth (hereinafter, JJ.CC.); but also against some of the clandestine militants of the Communist Party (P.C.).

For this, it used information provided by militants of the JJ.CC. who, after being detained, became collaborators and in some cases agents, such as Carol Flores Castillo, Miguel Estay Reyno, and René Basoa Alarcón.

This is how numerous leaders of the aforementioned political organization began to be detained, who were performing or had assumed leadership tasks in it to replace those who were detained, or who were “frozen” (hidden in safe houses) as a preventive measure against the wave of repression unleashed against the organization.

h) Indeed, at 19:30 hours on July 28, two individuals arrived at the home of Nicomedes Toro Bravo, identifying themselves as agents of the Air Force Intelligence Directorate (DIFA), who were traveling in a pickup truck.

The subjects came to drop off Nicomedes Toro Muñoz—the father of the affected party—since, as they stated, they had detained him due to a mix-up of names. Likewise, the agents told the homeowner that later they would bring back his children Sonia Rodina and Nicomedes Segundo, who had also been detained by that service.

Indeed, Sonia Rodina Toro Bravo returned to her home the same day, July 28, around 21:30 hours. However, the affected party would never return. Nicomedes Toro (father) and his daughter Sonia told their relatives that they had remained confined, together with the affected party, in a secret detention and torture center, which they could not identify because they remained blindfolded at all times.

In that place, they could hear the voice and screams of the affected party, at the moments when he suffered the application of illegal coercion, accompanied by strong insults. In the same facility and on the same date, Nicomedes Toro Bravo was confronted with another detainee of the security agencies, Benito Pascual Arias—a personal friend of the affected party—who subsequently, after obtaining his freedom, traveled abroad in order to preserve his life.

He claims to have been detained in the “Joint Command” facility, located on Calle Dieciocho de Septiembre, called “La Firma,” the former premises of the newspaper “El Clarín.” This is also affirmed in different testimonies provided by the former member of the Chilean Air Force, Andrés Antonio Valenzuela Morales, due to which it has been possible to reconstruct, in part, the gestation and actions of an illicit organization, which has come to be called the “Joint Command,” and of which the former agent was a part.

i) Raúl Montoya Vilchez, married, four children, electrician, union leader, militant of the Communist Party, was detained by security agents on July 21, 1976, at 09:00 in the morning, upon leaving his home located at Calle Club Hípico 2851, Población Alessandri in the capital, in circumstances where he was heading toward a nearby public transport stop.

At that moment, a blue Peugeot 404 automobile, which was moving in the opposite direction to the affected party, pulled up beside him, and three men and a woman, dressed in civilian clothes, got out, grabbed Raúl Montoya Vilchez by the arms, and shoved him into the vehicle, which sped off immediately.

The family found out about his detention around 14:00 hours that day, from a neighbor who witnessed the events and who communicated to one of the victim’s children, who was arriving from school: “...they took your dad...”.

Said person subsequently, and despite the family’s requests, refused to make judicial statements for fear of reprisals. In the days prior, Montoya Vilchez had met with an agent who performed functions in both the Joint Command and the DINA, named Otto Trujillo, who offered to provide him with information about the whereabouts of forcibly disappeared persons in exchange for money.

His kidnapping was perpetrated after the aforementioned meeting, which he commented on to his family and party comrades, and of which he left an explicit account in a handwritten letter. Since that date, no further information is known about the whereabouts of Raúl Gilberto Montoya Vilchez.

Although Otto Trujillo was discharged in February 1976 by the Joint Command, he remained in close contact with Roberto Fuentes Morrison, alias “Wally,” who protected him and who was the operational Chief at La Firma during 1976.

j) From the moment of the disappearance of Nicomedes Toro Bravo and Raúl Montoya Vilchez, they have not contacted their relatives, there is no record of them leaving the country, nor is their death confirmed.

Source: El Clarín, December 30, 2014