Case Nos. 1774, 1786, 1790, 1803, 1809 and 1810 (CHILE)

Case 1774. September 14, 1973, from Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, represented by their respective Secretary Generals, reporting serious concern about mass arrests and summary executions of political opponents in the Republic of Chile as well as of political refugees from other countries, in Chile. In this cablegram, after emphasizing the urgency of the case, they requested the intervention of the OAS in reaching an agreement with other American countries to grant asylum to members of the opposition and to persuade the Chilean authorities to permit the refugees to leave that country for the countries that wished to received them. In addition, it requested action by the OAS to ensure that the Government of Chile would respect the human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration as well as the tradition of asylum and would act in a just and humanitarian manner towards the members of the opposition in the country.

On September 17, 1973, the Commission requested the Government of Chile, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, to provide the pertinent information.

In view of new reports that expressed serious concern that the Chilean authorities would take severe repressive measures against members of the opposition and political refugees, the Commission again addressed the Government of Chile in a cablegram in the same month and year, recommending to it, (in accordance with the powers provided for in Article 9 b of its Statute) that such measures be in accordance with respect for the human rights embodied in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In addition, in the same communication, it urged the above-mentioned Government to provide information on the measures it was adopting with respect to human rights, pursuant to Article 9 c of its Statute.

These communications were repeated on December 26, requesting the consent of the Government of Chile for the Executive Secretary of the CIDH, Dr. Luis Reque, to visit Chile in order to gather information concerning the status of human rights.

In a cablegram dated September 26, 1973, the Government of Chile assured the Commission that it will continue to fulfill its obligations arising from Inter-American commitments with respect to human rights and added that the persons arrested, who were receiving humanitarian treatment, would only be convicted, after trial, if they were implicated in criminal matters. Also, in a note dated October 5, 1973, it authorized the Executive Secretary to visit Chile. This visit took place from October 12 to 17, 1973. As a result thereof, the Executive Secretary made a report to the Commission.

On the basis of the reports received, the replies of the Government of Chile, and the report of the Executive Secretary, the Commission considered the status of human rights in Chile, File 1774, in the course of its thirty-third session (October 1973) and decided: i) to transmit to the Government of Chile, in request for information, the pertinent parts of the specific reports received prior to the thirty-first session; ii) to request the Government of Chile to provide information on the specified cases of persons who had allegedly disappeared, been executed, tortured or arrested, which appear in the report of the Executive Secretary of the Commission (doc. 31-31, rev.), made as a result of his visit to Chile in October 1973; iii) to request the Government of Chile to provide information on the measures it had adopted or intended to adopt that affected human rights; and iv) to authorize the Chairman of the Commission to request the Government of Chile for its consent to allow the CIDH to visit Chile and to carry out an investigation in loco of the reports, if it was considered advisable in accordance with the turn taken by the status of human rights and the replies of the Government of Chile to the requests for information.

In implementation of these decisions, the Commission sent three notes to the Government of Chile, namely:

  1. Note of October 24, 1973, requesting, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, the pertinent information about the status of the following persons: Luis Corvalán, Solange Bassos da Silva, Manuel Messias da Silva, Mariano Rodríguez and Arthur Jader Cunha.
  2. The Government of Chile, in a note dated December 14, 1973, sent information according to which Messrs. Da Silva, Rodríguez and Jader Cunha had left the country after having been tried. With respect to Mr. Corvalán, it stated that he would be tried for the charges made against him and that, in that trial, he would enjoy all the guarantees of due process established in Chilean legislation.

  3. Note of October 24, 1973, requesting information about several specific cases reported during the visit of the Executive Secretary of the CIDH to Chile (October 12-17, 1973), and other facts contained in the report presented by him to the Commission at its thirty-first session (doc. 31-31, res.). This note covers the following cases:
  1. Disappearance of 16 Persons (mentioned in the note) as a result of the events that occurred on September 11 et. seq.;
  2. Information about their whereabouts; their state of health; whether or not they have been deprived of their liberty and, if so, where they are held; whether they have been tried and the court and place of the trial; whether they had legal resources for their defense; name of their attorney and postal address;
  3. Information about the alleged death by execution and/or torture of 12 persons (mentioned in the note) as a result of the events that occurred in September 1973;
  4. Whether these persons are actually dead; where their remains have been buried; whether their death was the result of an act of the public authorities; whether execution was preceded by legal formalities (ordinary or emergency or under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which the CIDH understands has been ratified by Chile).
  5. Whether it has been possible to confirm the torture or harassment of these persons;
  6. Whether, in the case of torture, harassment or arbitrary execution, measures have been taken to prevent the repetition of such events;
  7. Information about whether the following persons, in addition to those whose names are included in the list mentioned in item a), have been tortured; Margarita Echeverría (arrested on the night of October 14 and taken to the National Stadium); Dr. Ricardo Elena (Uruguayan, cardiologist, professor at the University of Concepción); Flora Espinosa Díaz (arrested on October 2 and allegedly beaten during the interrogation that took place on October 8); Feline Iñigas (Bolivian, arrested and tortured); Delbo Ignacio da Silva (Uruguayan, arrested and tortured); Dr. Claudio Weder Ubilla (resident at Ramón Diaz No. 1061, Apt. 34, arrested on September 27 and taken to the La Puntilla Police Station, Transferred to the National Stadium on October 4).
  8. Information about 9 Persons arrested (mentioned in the note) with regard to whom it has been reported that they have not been informed why they had been arrested. In each case, the date of the arrest and the place in which they are held is given information is requested about the actual place of detained, whether they are still detained, the authority that has jurisdiction over the case which has been presented, and whether these persons have been assisted by counsel for the defense.

In a note dated March 27, 1974 (No. 4958), transmitted through the Delegation of Chile to the OAS, the Government of Chile provided the following information:

  1. That, with respect to the 16 persons stated to have disappeared, 13 of them "had left the territory of the Republic, either voluntarily or on expulsion from the country because their presence, in accordance with the legal rules in force, was a serious threat to national security since several of these individuals were involved in activities aimed at disturbing public tranquility and threatened the security of the State". (The names are given).
  2. With respect to two of the persons who had allegedly disappeared, the whereabouts of one of them, an Uruguayan, was not known, and with respect to the other, whose name was included in the same list of 16 persons who had disappeared, he had been found shot to death on the public highway on the morning of September 18, 1974, and it had not been possible to establish "whether his death was caused by a military patrol enforcing the curfew and obliged to fire if this person did not obey an order to halt or whether his death was caused by extremists who, under the cover of the night, fired at members of the Armed Forces and of the police as well as at the civilian population in desperate and suicidal attempts".
  3. That, with respect to the alleged death by execution and/or torture of 12 persons, information was not available, in the case of one of them, about the cause of his death; another (a former official of the disposed Government) had been killed by habitual criminals, and the third had been killed by snipers. With respect to the other nine (9), no information was available because of lack of data or because the investigations of the Chilean authorities were still not complete with respect to those nine persons (the names are mentioned) although "as soon as possible, the facts establishing the status of those persons" would be sent to the Commission.
  4. That, with respect to the list of six (6) persons, in addition to the 12 mentioned above, concerning on it was alleged that they had been tortured (the names are given), three were free and three were no longer in the country.
  5. That, with respect to nine persons concerning on it was reported that they did not know the reason for their arrest, three of them were no longer in the country; information was lacking concerning two of them; one was detained in the Women's Prison and would be prosecuted in the ordinary courts (a Judge of the Appeals Court of Santiago is in charge of the proceedings), and the other two (both women) had sought asylum.

Finally, the Government of Chile stated that "with regard to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it has fully cooperated in the solution of the problems which might possibly affect them, but it could not under any pretext accept the claim that it has condoned offenses against decency, harassment or torture. Our Government most emphatically rejects any report to that effect, considers it baseless, and is in a position to state categorically that, since September 10, there have been no acts offensive to human dignity. Any violation of the basic rights of man is, in our opinion, incompatible with civilized life. Furthermore, from the first instant, the new Government instructed the Armed Forces to act at all times in accordance with the Christian and humanist principles that inspired and inspire the action of the new Government of Chile and to do everything possible to safeguard human rights."

  1. Note of October 25, 1973, which requested the Government of Chile to report on the measures it had adopted or proposed to adopt in the matter of human rights. Specifically, it included, in the form of a questionnaire, the following points:

Complete text of the decree-laws and other provisions promulgated by the Government that affect or may affect human rights; whether all or any of the guarantees of human rights referred to in the above-mentioned decree - laws have been suspended; the status of public communications media and the status in generals of persons deprived or their liberty as a result of the events that occurred in the country beginning on September 11, 1973, as well as concerning the penitentiary system, status of women arrested, system of autopsies, etc.

In a note dated January 10, 1974 (JLE/mic No. 1977), the Government of Chile replied to the questionnaire contained in the note of October 25 and sent with in a copy of the pertinent decrees issued by the Military Junta of Government with respect to human rights.

In summary this information and documentation covers the following points:

  1. Texts of Decree-Laws Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 23, 25, 27, 50, 76, 77, 78, 81, 98, 105, 111, 112, 128, 130, 133 and 139 and of the Military Edicts issued up to September 26, 1973, as they appear in the edition of "El Mercurio" of that date.
  2. Provisions applicable in accordance with Chilean legislation on the "state of siege" and "emergency situation". In summary, it contains the following information:
  1. That, according to Article 72, 17 a, of the Constitutions by the declaration of the state of siege "only the President of the Republic is empowered to transfer persons from one department to another and to arrest them in their own homes and in places that are not prisons or places intended for the detention or imprisonment of common criminals".
  2. That, with respect to the state of emergency, Law No. 12,927 of August 6, 1958, in Article 33 states that "When a state of emergency has been declared in the area concerned, it shall be under the immediate authority of the Chief of the National Defense the Government designates, who will assume military command with the powers and duties specified in this law. For the performance of his functions, in the different areas in which the state of emergency prevails, he may delegate his powers to officers of any of the three branches of the National Defense that are under his Jurisdiction."
  3. That, with respect to cases instituted in the ordinary courts, the right of Habeas corpus is fully in effect but does not apply to cases instituted in military courts.
  4. That the appeal of "Amparo" is not in order before military courts in accordance with Article 72, paragraph 17, of the Constitution.
  5. That proceedings against civilians may be instituted in military courts, in accordance with Law No. 5 of September 12, 1973.
  6. That, as long as the state of siege exists, there is no limit on the time of detention before proceedings are instituted in the ordinary courts.
  7. That both those subject to ordinary courts and those subject to military courts must have a defending counsel and their case must be in accordance with "due process".
  8. That the ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction over appeals lodged against judgments by military courts "since, the country being in a state of war, they are under the authority of the General in Chief of the territory concerned, who has full powers to execute, revoke or modify their decisions in accordance with Article 74 of the Code of Military Justice".
  9. That, in state of siege, Article 72 of the Constitution grants the Executive the power to transfer persons from one department to another, to arrest them in their own homes and in places that are not prisons or other places intended for the detention or imprisonment of common criminals.
  1. With respect to the status of Public communication media: there is a system of censorship, suspension or closure in the case of those that were "recognized propagandists of Marxism or did not comply with the instructions of the Supreme Government", and "it is the desire of the Junta to gradually reduce these controls as the circumstances of the national activity so permits; at present all the organs of the press publish without prior censorship, and several radio stations have been authorized to issue their own information bulletins, independently, subject to the general rules concerning responsibility for abuses of publicity".
  2. Status of Persons deprived of their liberty: in Chile "persons are not arrested for their political ideas but because of the commission or presumption of ordinary offenses. In any event, those persons that have been arrested for ordinary offenses related to the political activity that was taking place up to September 11 (illegal possession of arms, economic offenses, etc.) and those that have been arrested for reasons of public security are subject to living and disciplinary conditions different from those for common criminals."

It also states in relation to this point that � "special provisions have been adopted to ensure the correct treatment of women deprived of liberty and that the observance of these instructions is periodically checked by means of inspections made of places of detention by various authorities. In addition, strict instructions have been issued with a view to preventing the mistreatment of persons detained and, during the periodical inspections, the fulfillment of these orders is verified", and that persons arrested receive visits from their relatives approximately every 15 days; that the correct treatment of women deprived of their liberty is guaranteed and persons arrested receive medical attention from the Red Cross and Social Workers.

With this information, the CIDH continued its examination of Case 1774 at its thirty-second session (April 1972) and appointed a Subcommittee to study the voluminous dossier and to make pertinent recommendations.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee, the Commission decided at that session:

  1. To request the Government of Chile, in accordance with Article 11 c of its Statute and Article 50 of its Rules of Procedure, to consent to the Commission visiting that country in order to carry out in situ an investigation on the status of human rights.
  2. To send a note to the Government of Chile requesting it to provide further Information on the specific cases included in the report of the Executive Secretary of the Commission (doc. 31-31 res.).

In implementation of these decisions, the Committee addressed the Government of Chile in notes dated 18 Aril and June 3, 1974 respectively.

After an exchange of communications between the CIDH and the Government of Chile and of a visit to that country by the Executive Secretary of the CIDH, the Commission, in accordance with the consent granted by that Government, visited Chile from July 22 to August 2, 1974, in order to make an investigation in situ of the status of human rights.

During its stay in Chile, the CIDH received 576 reports on specific cases of alleged violations of human rights in that country . For the purposes of the statutory processing of such reports and as explained on page 37 of this report, these reports were classified into the following categories:

  1. Persons arrested with respect to whom the place in which they had been imprisoned was unknown;
  2. Persons arrested without charge or in virtue of the state of siege;
  3. Persons arrested and charged or who were possibly subject to trial by the military authorities;
  4. Persons serving sentences following trials in which, according to the report, the requirements of due process had not been complied with;
  5. Persons shot without previous trial or after trials in which, according to the reports, the right to due process, embodied in Article XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and been violated; and
  6. Juveniles detained in prisons or other places together with adults and subject to the same conditions as adults.

In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Commission transmitted to the Government of Chile, in request for information, the pertinent parts of the 576 reports received in Chile (from July 22 to August 2), classified into the above-mentioned four categories. These reports were transmitted under notes dated October 11, 1974. A copy of these notes was transmitted to the Delegation of Chile to the OAS on November 30.

As of the end of the period covered by this report (December 31, 1974), the Government of Chile has not replied.

Case 1786, October 29, 1973, reporting the illegal arrest of Miss Lucy Lorstch, which took place in Santiago on October 2, 1973. According to the report, the person arrested was not implicated in any political activities or involved in armed resistance. It would appear that she had been arrested for writing a history of Chile considered to be disrespectful.

In a cablegram dated November 13, 1973, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure. In a letter dated November 14, 1973, the Secretariat informed the complainant how the complaint was being processed.

In a cablegram dated November 20, 1973, the Government of Chile replied to the request for information, stating that Miss Lorstch had been arrested and would be tried for the offenses with which she was charged, on which occasion she would end on the full guarantees of the Chilean legal system.

In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Commission transmitted to the complainant, in a letter dated November 21, 1973, the pertinent parts of the information supplied by the Government of Chile.

The Commission considered this communication, together with the information provided by the Government of Chile, at its thirty-second session (April, 1972) and decided: a) To send to the Government of Chile a note requesting it to provide further information about the nature of the offenses of which Miss Lucy Lorstch was accused and of the type of proceedings that would be instituted against her; and b) To request the complainant for further information concerning the case.

In implementation of this decision, the Commission sent a note to the Government of Chile on June 3, 1974, and to the complainant on April 26, 1974.

In a note in reply dated July 22, 1974 (No. 12,238), the Government of Chile provided further information on the case in the following terms:

"In this regard I wish to inform you that Miss Lorstch is being tried by the Military Court of Santiago and is accused of infringing Article 1 of Law No. 12927 on the Internal Security of the State, and that the case is at the stage of summary proceedings.

"I must also give you certain details with respect to the questions you asked. In the first place, the military courts are ordinary courts, in accordance with Chilean legislation. Next, the case against Lucy Lorstch began with the steps the State Prosecutor ordered to be carried out in order to gather the evidence that would enable him to decide whether or not to charge the accused. I imagine that the question refers more to the date of the hearing at which the Public Prosecutor will make the charge and the defending counsel will present the defense. In this respect I can state that the hearing will be held as soon as the stage of the summary proceedings has been completed, the decision of the Public Prosecutor is taken and made known, and the person accused and her lawyer prepare the defense of the case, all of which is in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Code of Military Justice."

For his part, the complainant, in a letter dated April 30, 1974, received by the CIDH on May 6, supplemented his report stating that Miss Lorstch was detained in the "Buen Pastor" prison, in Santiago, and had not been charged, although she was in good health.

With this information, the CIDH examined Case 1786 at its thirty-fourth session (October, 1974) and decided: a) To inform the complainant of the pertinent parts of the information provided by the Government of Chile; and b) To authorize the Secretariat to file the dossier if, within a reasonable period of time, pertinent observations were not made by the complainant on the information supplied by the Government of Chile. In implementation of that decision, a letter was sent to the complainant on November 19, 1974.

Case 1790, November 9, 1973, reporting:
  1. That Dr. Enrigue Paris Roa, a member of the Executive Committee of the University of Chile and Advisor on Higher Education to the late President of Chile, Dr. Salvador Allende, who was with the President on September 11, 1973 in La Moneda Palace, was arrested and sent to the TACNA Regiment in Santiago, where many witnesses have stated that he was "publicly tortured."
  2. That, since September 17, 1973, neither the authorities to which the complainant had had recourse nor the members of Dr. Paris� family had been able to obtain any information about the place of his detention or his state of health.
  3. That foreign publications and radio stations had reported on his alleged death as a result of the tortures he had received. This had allegedly been neither admitted nor denied by the Government authorities.
  4. That the local authority that had jurisdiction of the case was the Court of Appeals of Santiago (Case NO. 529-73 of September 29, 1973), which gave official notice to the Investigations Service. This Service, in a letter dated October 1, 1973, replied that they had no record of the arrest of Dr. Paris Boa.
  5. That the Court of Appeals also wrote to General Jefe de la Plaza de Santiago who, in a reply dated October 14, 1973, stated that Dr. Paris was not detained under his orders.

In a note dated January 9, 1974, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure. In a letter dated January 11, 1974, informed the complainant of the processing of the case. This request for information was repeated in a cable dated April 10, 1974.

The Government of Chile, through its Delegation to the OAS, reported in a note dated April 12, 1974 (No. 345) that it had no official information about the person of Dr. Paris Boa who seems to have disappeared and that investigations were continuing to establish his situation. The Government of Chile offered to report on the results of that investigation.

The Commission considered this report at its thirty-second session (April 1974) and, bearing in mind the reply of the Government of Chile, decided to postpone examination of the case until it received the information offered and to transmit to the complainant the pertinent parts of the above-mentioned reply.

Subsequently, the Government of Chile in a note dated July 6, 1974, supplemented its reply of April 12 in Letter No. 652 stating the following:

"Since the investigations to establish facts concerning Mr. Paris are still continuing, and in accordance with provisions of Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the CIDH, I request your Excellency to be good enough to transmit to the Commission of which you are the Chairman a request from our Government for an extension of the time limit of an additional 90 days for providing information on Case No. 1790 relating to Mr. Enrique Paris Boa."

During an investigation in loco of the CIDH in Chile, the complainant and other persons appeared before it to supplement the complaint at the offices of the Commission.

The Commission continued its study of the matter at its thirty-fourth session (October, 1974). In addition, the Commission considered that this case of Dr. Paris Roa was included, together with other cases of persons who have been arrested in Chile since September 11, 1973, and had allegedly disappeared, that were reported to it during its stay in Chile, with respect to which, on October 11, 1973, it had asked the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information.

In the light of these facts, the Government decided, at that session, to postpone once again the examination of the merits of case 1790 until its next session, once the Government of Chile had supplied the corresponding information .

This decision was transmitted to the complainant on November 14, 1974.

Case 1799, February 21, 1974, reporting the arbitrary arrest of thirty-eight (38) members of the so-called Siloista religious sect in Chile. The events occurred on December 23, 1973, and on January 16, 1974. According to the report, the persons arrested (men and women) would be tried by a military court in March 1974.

In a cablegram dated February 25, 1974, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure.

The Government of Chile, in a note dated March 14, 1974, replied to the request of the Commission and provided the following information:

  1. The Siloista movement has, since its appearance, constituted a serious and continuing threat to public morality, public order and good conduct, and its leading members had caused public scandals and notorious trials in the ordinary courts of Justice for traffic and use of drugs, corruption of minors, etc.
  2. That it could hardly be classified as a religious group and that its political character was fully documented and demonstrated by Chilean Journalists (in particular by the investigation of Jaime Valdés made in early 1973) which established links between Siloists and the Chilean Marxist authorities and organizations
  3. That press campaigns against Siloistas had occurred periodically since 1970, sponsored by defenders of the integrity of the family and Christian morality.
  4. That, in the use of his legal powers, the officer in charge of the state of siege of the Province of Santiago ordered the arrest of the 10 Siloists mentioned in the request for information of the Commission.
  5. That Messrs. Leonardo Espinosa, Bruno Von Ehremberg and Nils Eric Knepfer Joansen were detained in the Santiago Prison and that a competent military court had Jurisdiction over the cases and would try them.
  6. That Messes. Fernando Lira and Luis Felipe Carvallo were detained in the Chilean Stadium and were not subject to military courts.
  7. That Misses María Asunción Cuevas, Marta Bunster, Inés Essen Winkler, Isabel Luna and Ana María Lavín were detained in the Women's Prison in Santiago but not tried by military courts.
  8. That all the persons arrested were receiving just treatment and that it was absolutely false that they were deprived of an adequate defense since the Code of Military Justice provides appropriate measures for guaranteeing it, and the persons affected could appoint attorneys they trusted, and, if they did not do so, attorneys appointed ex officio by the court trying the case would assume that responsibility.
  9. That the Government of Chile is not violating nor will it ever violate human rights and will remain faithful to the principles of justice and equity that make it possible and compulsory to investigate and prosecute the criminal activities of anti-social elements that are aimed at physically and/or morally annihilating members of the community, all of which, naturally, by means of pre-established procedures and with the intervention of competent courts in accordance with the legal and constitutional provisions in force, and that the Government of Chile felt obliged to take energetic action, although strictly in accordance with law, in order to prevent the deceitful actions of groups or individuals that violate the fundamental rights of the human person such as his health and dignity, but it will be for the courts to determine whether they are really guilty and deserve punishment, or whether they are innocent and deserve to be acquitted.
  10. That the terms of the report were unacceptable and the Government of Chile rejected them categorically, basing itself on the arguments set forth above and supported by the traditional Chilean policy of respect for human rights.

In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Commission transmitted to the complainant, in a letter dated March 25, 1974, the pertinent parts of the information provided by the Government of Chile. For her part, the complainant, in a letter dated March 15, had sent additional information on the complaint.

With all this information to hand, the Commission began the examination of the report at its thirty-second session (April 1974) and decided: To again address the Government of Chile and request it to be good enough to provide it with additional information concerning whether any of the persons mentioned in letter g of the summary included above had been or were going to be tried by ordinary courts and whether such persons were detained under the provisions applicable in the state of siege or because they were accused of common offenses.

In implementation of this decision, the Commission addressed the Government of Chile in a note dated January 3, 1974. In a letter dated April 29, 1974, it informed the complainant of this decision.

The Government of Chile, in a note dated July 22, 1974 (No. 12239) transmitted the following additional information to the CIDH:

"I refer to your notes dated June 3 through which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requests information concerning the status of certain persons.

"In this regard I wish to state to you the following:

"A. Situation of Miss Laura Martínez Silva

No information is available to the effect that she has been detained at any time.

"B. Situation of Miss María Elena Gallardo

Was detained, but released on September 11, 1973.

"C. Case 1799

1. Luis Fernando Lira. Is free.

2. María Asunción Cuevas. Is free.

3. Marta Bunster. Is free.

4. Isabel Luna. Is free.

5. Ana María Lavín. Is free

6. Luis Felipe Carvallo. No information is available to the effect that he has been detained.

7. Inés Wintler. No information is available to the effect that she has been detained.

Furthermore, during the investigation in loco of the Commission in Chile, new information was received from the complainant according to which Mr. Luis Fernando Lira (who, in accordance with the information transcribed above, was allegedly "free") was still detained in the Pisagua Prison.

In a note dated July 29, 1974, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information. That Government, in a note dated August 16, 1974 (No. 13957) provided the following information:

"I wish to inform you that I have received a note - Case 1799 dated June 29, 1974 - by which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requests information concerning the status of Luis Fernando Lira Haquín.

"In this regard, I can inform you that Luis Fernando Lira is at present detained in Pisagua in accordance with the powers which, under the Law of the State of Siege, the Political Constitution confers on the Executive Branch.

"Furthermore, I am in a position to inform you that the Supreme Court of Justice denied by a decision handed down yesterday an appeal of amparo filed in favor of Lira, stating that �bearing in mind the grounds of the resolution appealed and the fact that the transfer and deprivation of liberty of the person involved had been ordered by the administrative authority in the exercise of special powers and under the State of Siege in which the country at present is, the appealed decision is confirmed�. The appeal of amparo had been denied earlier by the Appeals Court".

On the basis of this information, the Commission examined case 1799 at its thirty-fourth session (October 1974) and approved a resolution (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.34, doc.25 dated October 25, 1974) in which it recommended to the Government of Chile that it take the necessary measures to ensure that as long as Luis Fernando Lira Haquín is deprived of liberty under the state of siege, the rule embodied in Article 72 n. 17 of the Constitution of Chile concerning the place of detention be observed, and that as soon as possible the competent authorities review the situation of the person detained in order to determine whether or not there are facts justifying his continued detention and consequently his trial, with the guarantees of due process or, if not, to set him free.

This resolution was made known to the Government of Chile in a note dated December 17, 1974 and to the complainants on November 14, 1974.

Case 1803, March 2, 1974, reporting the arrest of Mrs. Nelsa Zulema Gadea Galán, an Uruguayan citizen resident in Chile. The event occurred on December 19, 1973, in the city of Santiago, called Condeil No. 264). After 10 days the Chilean authorities reported that the person detained was in the Women's Prison in Santiago, although visits to her were not permitted. Subsequently "the Chilean authorities systematically denied that she was detained and that she was there".

In a cablegram dated March 11, 1974, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure.

In a note dated March 27, 1974 (OIA No. 4957), the Government of Chile replied to the request for information, stating the following:

"In this regard, I am pleased to inform Your Excellency that the authorities of the country were requested to provide the pertinent information and that the result of these investigations indicate that the above-mentioned person belonging to the Tupamaro movement escaped on December 19, 1973 from the troops that went to arrest her and subsequently she has not been found in her residence or elsewhere."

The Commission considered this communication, together with the reports supplied by the Government of Chile, at its thirty-second session (April 1974) and decided, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, to inform the complainant of the pertinent parts of this information. In implementation of that request, the CIDH wrote to the complainant on April 26, 1974.

During the investigation in loco the CIDH made in Chile, the complainant and other persons supplied additional information on the report and also made comments on the information provided by the Government of Chile. In particular, it was reported to the CIDH that, according to information coming from official sources (communicated to the persons concerned), Mrs. Gadea Galán was allegedly still detained in an establishment in the north of Chile.

At its thirty-fourth session (October 1974), the Commission continued its examination of the matter in the light of the above-mentioned information and decided: To request the Government of Chile to provide further information on the fate of Mrs. Gadea Galán who, according to information received, might be detained in the city of Pisagua. In addition, it decided to inform the complainant of this decision.

The Commission therefore communicated its decision to the complainants on November 14, 1974, and to the above-mentioned Government in a note dated December 17, 1974;

Case 1809, March 18, 1974, reporting the following facts:
  1. That the former lieutenant of the Chilean army, Mr. Carlos Pérez Tobar, had been charged with high treason because of the fact that, "for moral and humanitarian reasons," he requested his discharge from the Army at the end of December, 1973, "when he became aware of the arrest, torture and prosecution of his brother, Eduardo, a student of agronomy at the Catholic University of Valparaiso who, although only 24 years of age, was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment."
  2. That the complainant, in exile in Mexico, had been persecuted, arrested and "brutally interrogated" and her university career had been abruptly cut short, and
  3. That information coming from Chile stated that the Military Prosecutor in the trial of Lieutenant Pérez Tobar was asking for the death penalty but that the family of the accused, resident in Santiago, had no information about the trial.

In a cablegram dated April 3, 1974, the Commission requested the Government of Chile to provide the pertinent information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure.

In a note dated July 15, 1974, the Government of Chile informed the Commission that Mr. Pérez Tobar had been detained since May 25, 1974 in the public prison in Santiago by orders of the Second Military Prosecutor's Office in that city, under Case No. 146-73, and that the person detained was charged with the crime of sedition in time of war. It was also explained in that note that the above-mentioned was in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Military Justice promulgated in 1925.

The Commission examined the referenced case during its thirty-fourth session (October 1974),together with the information provided by the Government of Chile and decided: To postpone its examination of the case in view of the fact that a trial was pending before the national authorities and to inform the complainant of the information supplied by the Government of Chile.

In implementation of that decision, the Commission sent a letter to the complainant on November 20- 1974.

Case 1810, March 26, 1974, reporting the arbitrary arrest of Christian Montecinos Slauther, Víctor Garretón, Jorge Salas and Marcos Adler and his wife, Mrs. Beatriz Diaz de Adler, on October 16, 1973. The following day, the bodies of these persons were found, according to an official report, at Kilometer 12 of the El Prado Tunnel and they were considered to be unknown.

The Commission examined the case in question at its thirty-second session (April 1974) and decided to transmit the pertinent parts of the report to the Government of Chile, in a request for information, in accordance with Articles 42 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure.

In implementation of this decision, a note was sent to the Government of Chile on June 3, 1974. IN a letter dated April 29, 1974, the complainant was informed of this decision.

In a note dated August 22, 1974 (No. 14378), the Government of Chile informed the Commission that "in view of the complex nature of the report made, I have taken steps to obtain from the competent national authorities the information necessary to enable me to give an appropriate reply to the Commission, as soon as I am provided with that information."

In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Commission, in a letter dated September 12, 1974, transmitted to the complainant the pertinent parts of the above-mentioned information.

The Commission considered this base at its thirty-fourth session (October. 1974) and, bearing in mind the offer of the Government of Chile to supply the pertinent information, decided to postpone its examination of the case until that information was to hand; however, in order to accelerate the processing of the report (given the seriousness of the facts mentioned), it also decided to repeat to the Government of Chile the request that it send this information.

In implementation of this decision, the Committee sent a note to the Government of Chile dated December 17, 1974. Also, in a letter dated November 25, 1974, it informed the complainant of the above-mentioned decision.