A unilateral definition of a nonexistent war and irregular and punitive action-martial should be added to the abdication, by the Supreme Court of its power, established in the State Constitution in force at the time of the coup, to control and supervise military tribunals in time of war. Thus the Supreme Court disclaimed mistakes and abuses committed by military tribunals, not only in performance but also its resolutions. Renouncing their custody of courts-martial, nor objected to the arbitrary extension of their jurisdiction to include acts and behavior prior to the enactment of the state of siege.
This led to dire consequences with regard to respect for human rights, since their exclusion court allowed the most serious violations of individuals and the law. A court exclusion was therefore committed by the highest court that a substance so special and usually as sensitive as the discernment of minors for criminal purposes, was also transferred to military courts in wartime. The collusion of the highest judicial authorities with the military responded, in part, to their common rejection of the government overthrown. The senior judges censured his claim to the establishment of socialism through the use of "loopholes" legal, as well as the deliberate inaction of the Executive to the violation of private property by their supporters, ignoring for political reasons many judgments mandating public
forcibly evict those involved in the "takings" of farms and factories. The fierce defense of judicial power, thwarted by administrative resistance to the execution of its judgments, drastically damaged relations between the executive and judicial powers, whose members were bitterly attacked by the spokespersons of the Popular Unity government, accusing them of acting as guardians of the interests of the privileged classes, in their resistance to the process of changes leading to greater social justice.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court not only gave the land for the discretionary action of the new authorities and their agents. In addition, ignored abuses against people left totally defenseless against those injustices. And this despite the fact that from the beginning, they were strongly denounced by the defense lawyers, who, accepting legal standards for strength in time of war, tried unsuccessfully to respect the international treaties signed by Chile in the matter, with order to enforce the guarantees of humane treatment of prisoners. In fact, the highest court in the country
provided strong support for the military government. Among his ministers, who had joined a political tour in Europe to validate externally the reasons of "military coup." President Supreme Court at the time of the coup was particularly emphatic in their adherence to the new authorities. In the opening speeches of the judicial year, the most solemn annual event of the Executive, insisted on expressing their support for the military government, going so far as to deny validity and authority to allegations of violations of human rights
made by national and international, and dismissing his criticism of the prevailing system of public freedoms in Chile after the coup. When he referred to those arrested under the new regime, presented a sympathetic picture without dark sides, which is not consistent with the thousands of testimonies to the contrary.
The deep political implications of such statements were much more damaging when they were spoken or reproduced by the press in favor of the regime, the only exercise, minimizing or denying their practices against a deliberately uninformed public. You can read the following in the year, corresponding to March 1, 1974 the afternoon La Segunda: "The President [of the Supreme Court, Enrique Urrutia Manzano] that has been imposed speech that many of the detainees, who were under the laws governing the state of siege, have been released. Others are processed in the ordinary or military courts, and with respect those who are detained under the powers of martial law into effect, makes an effort to alleviate the plight of detainees and clarify as soon as their participation in conflict with the law. It is hoped that this effort can be completed as soon as possible to the situation in which families are affected
.
Supreme Court president persisted in supporting the military regime, stating its categorical rejection
who are bent on attacking the new government.
this country, "said Urrutia Manzano from the pages of The Mercury on March 2, 1975 - joined in due course the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Chile, which is not a land of barbarians, as has been suggested on the outside, and by unpatriotic or foreign individuals who obey interested policy, has endeavored to comply strictly such rights, you may only be issued and arrests attributable to legal process or processed under special powers given by the state of referral. As for torture and atrocities
of the same nature, I can say that here there are no walls or curtains of iron, and any assertion to the contrary is due to proselytizing press ideas that could not and will thrive in our country.
In light of evidence like this, it is clear that the helplessness of the citizens, the responsibility of a judiciary that protects the systematic human rights violations by state agents or persons in their service, should be primarily attributed ministers of the Supreme Court, whose conduct sets the pace for the lower courts, by way of example or for fear of disciplinary power, exercised through the resources of complaint or annual reports. In other words, the Supreme Court did not comply with the duty to protect people affected by the repressive policy, sending clear signals of passivity and consent. In the end, most judges declined to override the law. The custom still in force in 1990, was severely punish the failures and the actions that differed from their official position of active collaboration with the dictatorship.
Moreover, the support of the judiciary to the military regime's punitive actions ran on par with the same internal purge. The ability to disagree with the approach outlined by the highest authority was weakened by the dismissal of judges accused of being supporters of the Popular Unity. By two decree laws December 1973, the Supreme Court acquired the power to remove judges and officials will, without even informing the affected of the charges cited for his removal, thereby canceling outright any possibility of replication. Even as before, to force resignations of magistrates and categorized as Marxists, had opted for the use of arbitrary transfers that hinder the continuation of the race on the Judiciary. In the future, the policy of promotions or qualifications would usually reward the military government's unconditional and penalize those who insist on acting independently, thus discouraging decisions or rulings adverse
their guidelines. The fear of the security services and retaliation against those who venture into their domain also inhibited the action independent judiciary. Additionally, claiming ignorance of history on the affected, the Ministry of Interior frequently invalidated the limited intervention of the courts for victims of unlawful and arbitrary arrest, during which the rule was the use of torture. Not being credited the arrest by any law enforcement agency in the absence of the respective warrant, could hardly release the person concerned
. Judges often hide behind the official procedure for rejecting the habeas corpus, even when there were witnesses to the arrest of the person concerned. Neither got used to ensure the rights and guarantees the same when you do recognize his arrest, for example, noting that the warrant was later the arrest, which was accomplished without first being intifada, or was not made by individual subjects, the quality of public officials had not been established.
interesting to point out here that the proper way to handle the protections, according to an Agreed Order issued by the Supreme Court in September 1932, required them to be resolved as quickly as possible to prevent the "unjust imprisonment" resulted in great evils for the individual, having lines of action consistent with this objective. During the military regime Judges routinely disregarded these instructions, which had been as original background Ibáñez dictatorship. They knew that they risked their careers if they accepted official appeals for protection and security they would be recalled at higher levels of the judiciary. Either for fear of reprisal or conviction of collaborating with a worthy cause, failed to act with decision expected towards the officials or state officials reluctant to report on the covered or unwilling to comply with the legal provisions concerning them.
the judiciary's resistance to accept the habeas corpus denied the victims of the repression of a crucial instrument proper legal use of which would have allowed to address more determined to torture, allowing the prolonged incommunicado extend their practice, and arrests in secret jails where prisoners were at the complete mercy of their captors, excluded from any control by justice. Only in Santiago, between 1973 and 1989, the Committee for Peace and the Vicariate of Solidarity had about 9,000
habeas corpus, for preventive detention, both individual and mass, which were rarely welcome. Between 1985 and 1989, for example, courts in the capital just 28 resources hosted under the 2357 presented by the Vicariate of Solidarity as recorded in their records. To justify the abdication of his duties, the highest judicial authorities resorted to an old doctrine that limited the recourse of amparo when
was in effect a state of siege. That case, of course much debated and questionable, always admitted its validity in the context of "transient site states," that is, a few days only, during periods when the ministers of State and the President should accountable for their possible abuse of power and arbitrariness to Congress, effective supervisory body while the actions of government. Of course, none of this happened after 11 of
September 1973.
The writ of amparo or habeas corpus has traditionally been the most important mechanism available to judges to safeguard the life and physical integrity of those arrested, claiming the presence of "body" of them in court. Despite this, judges rarely ordered to be brought under a court, while admitting that the security services are not always agreed to comply with such requests and, if they did, as stated in testimony delivered to the
Commission previously took care of threatening to hit on the grave consequences of a candid statement regarding the torture he suffered.
torture Callar appeared as a way of exposing themselves to get it again, as clarification of the torturers themselves when required to fire victims for justice. As an agent to warn him of the National Intelligence (CNI), a student from Valparaiso arrested and tortured in 1984 (and that this Committee gave detailed accounts of their experience), "where you Sabis Estai, or colaborái or leave you crippled for life, here are worth the amparo
here sent us. "
regard to the processes of illegal detentions and use of torture was also customary for ordinary and military courts to refrain from identifying the perpetrators, no constraints decree against the officers who refused to relevant information, do not become the scene; not practice reconstructions of scenes, not to notice the traces or fingerprints, or make sketches of the perpetrators, not to mention witnesses to the facts alleged by the complainant, and abuse of secret legal proceedings pending proceedings claiming that, as you never met, made possible the indefinite prolongation of that state. All this should not be forgotten, while the perpetrators could pressure the victim to desist proceeding with the lawsuit. This also applies to the few judges with the courage to pursue research
concerning allegations of torture.
repeated death threats seeking to end their inquiries (as happened to Judge Rene Garcia Villegas of the Twenty Criminal Court of Santiago, according to a report by Amnesty International, 1987). Moreover, the few civilian judges, the 1980 entry, decided to take his research fund, saw their efforts often end in nothing transferred the cases to military courts, which competed with the research that suspected involvement
uniformed personnel. Indeed, military justice up a defensive line of the repressive system: in its power, the lawsuits torture on forever or rejected, protecting legally violators of human rights. Thus, he evaded prosecute members of security agencies or the police charged with allegations of torture, preferably beginning from search more evident when the traces had disappeared, and can not thus be credited
crime.
Considering the facts discussed so far, not surprising that Jose Canovas Robles, the judge appointed president of the Santiago Appeals Court in 1974 to commemorate the performance of the judiciary during the military regime, concluded in his Memoirs of a judge (1989): "The courts justice did not dare to impose the respect of applicable legal provisions. "In short, the guarantees of impunity that the judiciary, on its own initiative or under pressure from the authorities
Executive-offered to the agents of repression, encouraged the continuation and intensification of political imprisonment and torture, as the judges currently failed to ensure the rights and integrity of their victims. With the permission of the Supreme Court, ignored the principle of urgency, and under which legally mandated amparo should fail within 24 hours to prevent torture. It was also agreed that the extrajudicial confession obtained through torture in secret places vouch for the claims of authority, is considered a proof on the defendant's criminal involvement.
Thus, not infrequently repressive agents forged the culprits, at least when the supporters of the military regime seemed to agree with strict punitive methods. And, as an aggravating factor is compounded by the tolerance of administrative confinement. In accordance with the principle that public authorities, even in extraordinary circumstances, have any authority or right to that conferred by the Constitution and laws, it is clear that they may not have incommunicado detainees under administrative orders decreed a state of emergency, as their powers are limited to only
made the arrest. During the dictatorship, however, met very extensive administrative incommunicado, two people competing in this Committee were incommunicado for up to 330 days after being arrested in January 1974 and remained until November of that year in secret places of the Directorate of Intelligence Nacional (DINA). Following the enactment of the 1980 Constitution, the lack of communication persisted, and came to last more than two months because of extensions ordered by military prosecutors to the usual 20 days. Meanwhile, the person isolated was available to the torturers, with plenty of time to pick on their victims and then await their apparent physical recovery.
If fear of retaliation discouraged complaints to the courts by those affected, the poor reception to them by the courts also urged the minimization of a real major problem that far exceeded the number of complaints. Only the Vicariate of Solidarity, between June 1978 and December 1989, lawsuits filed over 1,300 cases of torture in the courts, never achieve satisfactory results. In 1981, for example, of the 909 detained by security services on charges break the ban on political parties, to subvert the public order or commit other crimes, 98 people were sued for torture and other ill-treatment. All complaints were dismissed citing lack of evidence, which remained that way the use of legal action, especially where the decision to disclose the torture he risked his own life and those nearby. Furthermore, the CNI had occasionally in collaboration with physicians in their session, who provided certificates certifying that the detainee had left their premises in perfect health, so that in case of injuries, they did not concern him. This procedure was applied to detainee deaths a result of torture. In the absence of convictions in the courts, the judiciary was
appearances of repute to the military regime as the government insisted on denying the existence of torture in Chile, despite repeated international condemnations of alluding to human rights abuses. The high court, in a decision of January 8, 1986 (income Supreme Court Rol No. 24810), stated that "the exercise of human rights is subject to the limitations imposed on him by authority, as far as necessary to prevent [. ..] public policy, the common good and national security. " No laws but the authorities could at his discretion limit the enjoyment of rights people. Resta
point out that complaints of torture and evidence confirming that allowed judges to peruse the regular and institutional use, especially since late 1970. It is true that at first the complaint of torture was rather generic. This is because the bodies of human rights concentrated their initial efforts on determining the whereabouts and status of missing persons, and put a guard, providing
leaving the country, former political prisoners still at risk. Only in June 1978 recorded the first allegations about justice filed with the support of the Vicariate of Solidarity. In any case, the organizations created to provide social and legal assistance to victims of repression, as the Committee for Peace and it never stopped Vicario strive for
instruct judges on human rights violations. At the same time, these institutions made general allegations and provided specific information on victims to international organizations. Thus, their reports that warned about the ongoing atrocities happened during all the years of the regime, beginning with the inquiry conducted by the executive secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in October 1973, the result showed
very serious allegations of torture by political prisoners. Moreover, the reputation of Chile in the matter never go unnoticed outside the country. Time magazine in its issue of August 16, 1976, gave an extensive report to the contemporary use of torture. Of all the nations accused of practicing as an auxiliary method of government, certifying that
cases most often cited by experts in the field were Chile and Iran. Faced with such accusations, the military government always responded by denying any validity, meaning that they were part of a smear campaign mounted by international Marxism.
Of course, other examples can be invoked internally-now-publicly identified.
In 1983, following the recent arrest of ten union leaders, about ninety lawyers filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to adopt "urgent measures to end torture, which has become a regular routine of interrogation and permanence anyone in the CNI secret prisons. "
They wanted to see senior judges, "while being tortured were processed habeas corpus on his behalf in the Court of Appeals of Santiago, to the various rooms they knew of resources consistently refused to accede to the demands of commissioning to become a minister in the CNI or direct that service to bring your presence to detainees, which would have avoided permanent
torture for five days " (4) . The lawyers worried about the defense of human rights never ceased to insist that Torture violates national laws and international instruments ratified by the government of Chile. Neither the 1980 Constitution, the cornerstone of the new institutions, or the Penal Code nor the Code of Military Justice covered such methods invariably condemned and proscribed. Torture, for Throughout the military regime, remained classified as a crime in the existing legal framework, legal protections exist,
substantive and procedural to ensure the integrity of the detainees. So resorted to the Supreme Court was aware that the legal framework for trying to put a shortcut to torture, reminding his ministers in August 1973 the high court had never reached an agreement as worthy of consideration as far as banning specifically question and obtain statements under physical and moral coercion of detainees, and keep them secret, incommunicado
without further order of the competent court.
4 "End torture now," Solidarity, 1st. half of September (1983), p. 5. Needless
clear, however, that the few positive actions of justice in relation to abuses of power put obstacles to the practice of repression, but the security services found ways to circumvent them to continue the use of torture. In an unprecedented ruling in November 1983, prompted by the filing of a habeas corpus protection for a population leader, the Fifth Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeals expressly refused to IPC the power to arrest and detain persons in secret prisons , invoking the constitutional provisions that allowed only the police (Carabineros and Investigations) make arrests, while they should always be verified in public places specifically for that purpose. The defense lawyers linked to human rights welcomed the decision, but in fact
repression took its course, discouraging the initial optimism. For starters, torture was a practice used by police and investigations, so that its staff reserve the arrests did not guarantee getting rid of ill-treatment in their service vehicles in their checkpoints and barracks. Worse, the CNI continued acting as usual. The laws were never binding on nii security agencies for the agents of repression, because their methods were part of the arsenal of government. Law 18,623, enacted in June 1987
, took the CNI allocation to maintain the premises in custody, while the power to make arrests, if those affected were given to police, investigations or court which had issued the warrant. But the CNI kept his secret detention, torture as well in their own homes for those affected and research units, as evidenced by lawsuits, Amnesty International reports and testimonies collected by the Commission.
0 comments:
Post a Comment