|
|
|
Case 2126 CHILE BACKGROUND: 1. In a
communication dated November 30, 1976, the following denunciation was
made: “Mr.
Carlos Humberto Contreras Maluje, a pharmaceutical chemist, married, 29
years old, was detained on November 3, 1976, at approximately mid-day,
in Nataniel Cox St. between Coqulebo and Aconcagua, by officials of the
National Intelligence Bureau (DINA), assisted by personnel of the Carabineros.
Mr. Contreras has been a town counselor in the Municipality of Concepción,
representing the Chilean Communist Party, and for this reason, although
his detention cannot be justified it seems empirically likely. According
to witnesses, Mr. Contreras was wounded at the time he was detained,
either by a third party, or because he had been run over by a bus on the
Vivacta Route, line 20. He was bleeding profusely from the head, and his
glasses, which he must wear at all time, had either been taken away or
destroyed. Despite
the fact he was so badly hurt, none of the Carabineros present gave him
any help. Rather, they surrounded him to prevent any possible aid from
coming, and to facilitate his being taken by the DINA officials. This
was precisely what the DINA did. Mr.
Contreras, despite the fact that he was wounded, defenseless, and in
such a precarious situation was desperate, and managed to shout out very
loudly what was happening to him: that he was being detained, that he
had been a victim of torture by security agents; he begged for help from
the astonished witnesses, he gave his name and identity, and asked them
to report what was happening to the ‘Maluje’ pharmacy in Concepción,
which belonged to his mother. After
he had shouted out that he was being mistreated, the persons
apprehending him decided to reduce him to silence, and beat him
repeatedly, and mercilessly in the presence of the horrified onlookers.
Then they put him into a light blue car, license plate Nº EG 388, which
some said was a Peugeot and others a Fiat 125. His
whereabouts are unknown, and there is a good reason to fear for his
personal security and for his life.” 2. In a
communication dated March 5, 1977, the person filing the complaint
informed the Commission as to the judicial proceedings that had taken
place in the case, as follows: “In
a Resolution of January 31, 1977, the Fifth Circuit of the Court of
Appeals of Santiago granted the writ of Amparo filed, stating
‘that the background information collected... enables a well-founded
inference to be drawn that on November 3 last, officials of the National
Intelligence Bureau proceeded to detain the appellant’, and that the
detention ‘was carried out without a proper warrant from any
authority’. The Court, therefore, ordered the Ministry of the Interior
to release Mr. Contreras immediately. On
January 31, 1977, the Secretary of the Court of Appeals reported that
the license plate of the car in which Mr. Contreras was taken away
‘belonged to the Chilean State Attorney (Fisco) and had been requested
by the Bureau of Intelligence of the General Chiefs of Staff of the
Chilean Air Force’. On
February 4, 1977, the Ministry of the Interior informed the Court of
Appeals that DINA ‘stated that there were no record on this person in
that office and that he had not been detained by officers of that
Agency’. Since
the Ministry of the Interior had failed to comply with the legal order
mentioned above, the Court of Appeals in full session decided to send
the case to the Supreme Court of Justice. The
Supreme Court of Justice decided on February 17, 1977 to postpone until
March its decision on the alleged incompliant by the Ministry of the
Interior. Nothing
is known yet of the status of Mr. Contreras, from the time he was
arrested on November 3, 1976 by DINA, despite the Court order, and we
are led to conclude that his life is in serious danger and that we must
intervene on his behalf as soon as possible.” 3. Subsequently, a
second complainant provided the Commission with the following additional
information contained in a letter of July 14, 1977: “In
a decision of April 7, 1977, the Supreme Court of Justice returned the
case of Carlos Humberto Contreras Maluje to the Court of Appeals, asking
the Appeals Court to take steps to identify the security agency
allegedly acting in the case of the appellant. Copies
were attached of sworn statements by Captain Clemente Nicolás Burgos
Valenzuela and Major Robinson Ascencio Medina Galaz, both Carabineros
of the Sixth Commissariat of Santiago, along with statements by other
witnesses who confirmed the events denounced, including the fact that
the four men who got out of the Fiat 125 identified themselves as
belonging to DINA, showing their identification cards from that agency.
Captain Burgos Valenzuela stated that he had reported the events in the
Police Day Book as soon as he arrived at the police station. In
reply to the order from the Court letter to the Court dated April 28,
1977, of Appeals, DINA sent a and signed by Jacobo Atalia Barcudi, Air
Force Brigadier General, as follows: 1.
This Intelligence Bureau did not detain Carlos Humberto Contreras
Maluje. This was reported to the First Military Magistrates Court, who
inquired after this individual in Official Note Nº 1606 of December 29,
1976. 2.
With regard to your inquiry as to who was using the 1974 Fiat
125-S, license plate Nº EG 388 on November 3, 1976 at approximately
11:30 a.m., I would report that this automobile was at the disposal of
the Director of General Intelligence, Mr. Enrique Ruiz B., for his
personal use. He was attending a meeting with the Director of Operations
of the Air Force, Mr. Osvaldo Latorre H., at the time indicated.” 4. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights transmitted the pertinent
parts of these communications to the Government of Chile in a note of
September 19, 1977, and asked it to provide the corresponding
information. 5. In response to
the Commission’s request, the Government of Chile sent a note dated
November 14, 1977, and, failing to refer to the events denounced as
transmitted to it, merely reported to the Commission in the following
terms: “Case
Nº 2126 Contreras Maluje Carlos: The Fifth Major Criminal Court of
Santiago declared itself without jurisdiction to hear Case Nº
103.372-4, because this person has been kidnapped. The background
information was transmitted on September 13 last to the Air Force
Attorney’s office of the Second Air Zone, which is investigating the
situation of this person. This case is under investigation. 6. One of the
complainants denounced the following additional facts in a communication
dated November 10, 1977: a.
Having completed the steps ordered by the Full Session of the
Supreme Court of Justice in its decision of April 7, 1977, the Fifth
Court of Appeals of Santiago ordered as follows, in a decision handed
down July 4, 1977: The
investigation ordered by the Supreme Court having been exhausted, let
notification be made to the Supreme Court of the result of that
investigation for all pertinent legal purposes. b.
In handing down the decision, according to the complainant,
‘The Justices of the Court, Mr. Adolfo Bañados Cuadra and Mr. Marcos
Libedinsky Tschorne submitted a complete report to the Supreme Court,
and attached the principal items of evidence, which completely confirmed
the decision’. c.
According to the person entering the denunciation, ‘It was at
that time, and only at that time, that on July 8, 1977, the Supreme
Court requested that the Court of Appeals refer to it the case for the
writ of Amparo, 1.020-76. Also at this time, attorney for the appellant
presented a brief asking the Supreme Court to order the Chief of State
to be the executing officer of the judgment’. d.
On receiving the decision of the Fifth Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court provided, on July 8, 1977, ‘that the appellant’s files
be brought before it’, and issued the following provision, by
unanimous verdict, on July 22, 1977: On
the principal proceedings, having seen the statement by His Excellency
the President of the Republic in his official note of March 22 last
(1977), which on this date added to the proceedings, this principal
proceeding is dismissed... Let the case be filed. C.26-77.” e.
Thus, the proceedings were returned to the Fifth Court of
Appeals, which filed the case on July 28, 1977. f.
The official note mentioned by the Supreme Court of Justice in
its Order of July 22, 1977, is of great importance, according to the
person filing he denunciation, who made the following comments: The
Supreme Court began an ‘administrative’ type of brief, up to folio
16... In
the same ‘administrative’ brief, there appears a photostatic copy,
without page numeration, of an alleged communication sent by the
President of the Republic to the Second Military Court of Santiago on
March 22, 1977, in a secret note Nº 1595.” g.
This note, according to the photocopy provided the Commission by
the complainant, includes the following points: 1.
As you are aware, the Court of Appeals of Santiago heard the writ
of amparo filed by attorney for the defense of Dr. Carlos
Humberto Contreras Maluje, alleging that he had been arbitrarily
deprived of his personal liberty. 2.
The undersigned President of the Republic has verified that the
presumed detention of the person referred to above was not ordered by
the Executive—in exercise of the powers granted to it by the current
state of siege--, and that in this case, as a consequence, none of the
special powers granted to it was used. 3.
The foregoing has made it absolutely impossible, both legally and
in fact, for the Ministry of Interior to comply with the order of the
Court of Appeals of Santiago, to implement the decision immediately to
release the person in reference; this has been the Executive’s
invariable posture.” In
the same note, the President asked the Military Judge to take: “All
measures and steps that might be pertinent to complete the investigation
begun of these events, to find those responsible and determine who might
appear to be responsible for them... WHEREAS: 1. In the light of
the background information reported above, it is inferred that there has
been an unjustifiable delay in the final decision with regard to
domestic remedies established for the protection of human rights alleged
to have been violated; 2. While certain
judicial proceedings have been continued before the Military Aviation
Court, the Appeals Court and the Martial Court, there is doubt that
jurisdictional channels on the writ of amparo filed on behalf of
Mr. Maluje have been exhausted; 3. The Government
of Chile in its note of November 14, 1977 made no reference to the
events denounced in the note of September 19, 1977, and to date has not
provided the corresponding information, THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES: 1. To declare that
the Commission has in its possession unequivocal proof of the fact that
Mr. Carlos Humberto Contreras Maluje was illegally detained by agents of
the Government of Chile on November 3, 1976, and since that time has
disappeared. 2. To observe to
the Government of Chile that these events constitute very serious
violations of (Article I) right to liberty and personal security,
(Article XVIII) right to a fair trial, (Article XXV) right to protection
against arbitrary arrest and (Article XXVI) right to due process of the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 3. To recommend to
the Government: a) without prejudice to such judicial proceedings as may
be under way, to order a complete impartial investigation to determine
responsibility for the events denounced, and to sanction those
responsible for such events, in accordance with Chilean law; b) to
inform the Commission as to the measures to put into practice the
recommendation contained in the preceding paragraph, within a maximum of
30 days. 4. To communicate
this Resolution to the Government of Chile and to the complainant. 5. To include this
Resolution in the Annual Report to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States (Article 9 (bis), paragraph c. iii of
the Statute.) 6. To continue
consideration of this case for all pertinent purposes. (Approved
at the 569th meeting of June 21, 1978 (44th
Session) and transmitted to the Government of Chile on September 19,
1978).
|
