On August 8, 2000, retired General and "lifetime Senator" Augusto Pinochet was stripped of his legislative immunity by Chile's Supreme Court, an event that just three years ago would not have seemed possible. As a result of the ruling, Pinochet faces possible indictment for human rights violations committed during his 17-year military regime, from 1973 to 1990. In a 14 to 6 decision, the Supreme Court decided that there is a "well-founded suspicion" that Pinochet was linked to the disappearances and deaths of 19 opponents in the weeks following the 1973 coup. The ruling additionally opens up the possibility of Pinochet being prosecuted for the 176 (and growing) criminal complaints that have been brought against him since January of 1998, for human rights violations to individuals and groups of people.

The Santiago Appellate Court chambers, as well as municipal courts throughout the country, are currently processing dozens of cases against (mostly retired) military officers. While about 25 members of the armed forces or police have been convicted and imprisoned since 1995 for human rights abuses during the dictatorship, in the last two to three years the numbers of cases being heard has escalated.

Demonstration in front of La Moneda on the third day of the immunity trial against Pinochet.

This summer I researched the activity in human rights law in Santiago, while working for the legal division of CODEPU (Corporación de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo). My main project with the organization, in conjunction with a visiting student from Berlin, was to summarize the facts and laws employed in groundbreaking human rights cases heard by the Supreme Court and Santiago Appellate court from mid-1998 to the present. These included eight cases of men disappeared during the 1970s; the Caravana de la Muerte case; the appellate court decision in Caso Pinochet that revoked Pinochet1s immunity in June; the Pisagua case (involving disappearances of ten ex-political prisoners in the Pisagua region); and the homicide of Santiago resident Alegría Mundaca. (The decision in this last case reopened an investigation into the murder of Tucapel Jiménez, a union later killed in the early 1980s; a previous investigation had determined Alegría Mundaca's death was a suicide and his "suicide letter" had implicated him in the death of Jiménez.)

Pinochetistas at the immunity trial.

The time I spent in Chile coincided with the three days of public hearings by the Supreme Court on Pinochet's immunity, as well as with demonstrations outside of the Supreme Court -- by both human rights activists and Pinochetistas -- and rallies in honor of the new Salvador Allende statue in the Plaza de la Constitución. This charged political atmosphere was opportune for initiating my Master1s thesis research, on the use of international law in a domestic context and the "transnationalization" of rights and legal strategies. The trip to Santiago allowed me to research human rights cases in Santiago, meet the lawyers and activists who are working on those cases, become familiar with the Chilean legal system, and, to the extent possible, get a sense for the political atmosphere.

Use of domestic and international law in human rights cases

Human rights activist.

The following example demonstrates one way that domestic and international law intersect in court rulings. The case of Pedro Poblete Córdova, who disappeared in 1974, is significant because it was the first in which the majority of the Supreme Court ruled to revoke the amnesty law and use, to the fullest extent, the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Supreme Court decision was published on September 9, 1998 -- a month before Pinochet was arrested in England by Scotland Yard -- reflecting both the opinions of new members of the Supreme Court and a change in the political atmosphere in Chile even before international exposure to the Pinochet case.

In the Poblete Córdova case, the majority argued that:

a disappearance is actually a kidnapping Ð and thus a continuing crime -- because the whereabouts of the victim are still unknown (use of domestic law);

the military junta's amnesty law, which covers crimes committed from 1973 to March 10, 1978, was not applicable in this case because "responsible parties" had not been named; thus the investigative process could not be completed. According to the justices, the amnesty law only applies to individuals once an investigation has been exhausted, precluding its use in disappearance cases (domestic law);

international treaties have constitutional primacy; thus the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Pact of Civil and Political Rights applied. Because the military junta had labeled the period of time as an internal "state of war," international law demands that states protect the rights and integrity of citizens. Additionally, Chile has an obligation to investigate possible human rights abuses during the time.

Justice Torres Silva, writing for the minority, countered that:

"there doesn't exist any indication that the detention of Poblete Córdova extended past March 10, 1978," the last date covered by the amnesty law. Consequently, the crime was not a kidnapping;

the amnesty law did in fact apply in this case because it is unnecessary to conclude an investigation when the investigated circumstances no longer constitute a crime;

the Geneva Conventions were not applicable because an internal state of war refers to internal territory under control by an armed opposition group. If the Conventions were to be applied, however, Silva argued that the international treaty recommends "broadest amnesty possible" for those who have taken part in an internal conflict, for reconciliation purposes.

The Pinochet Case: Will he be tried in Chile?

The cases against Pinochet -- which now number 176 -- continue to grow. In the last month, five new ones have been brought to the investigating judge, Juan Guzmán of the Santiago Appellate Court. A recent development is a charge against Pinochet for crimes of "illicit association, genocide and espionage." This comes in the wake of a report released in September by the CIA, acknowledging that Manuel Contreras, the former head of the DINA, worked as a paid informant for the CIA.

On October 27, an Argentine judge requested the extradition of Pinochet and other DINA leaders for the death of former Chilean Army Commander in Chief Carlos Prats and his wife Sofia: an Argentine court had ruled that the car bombing was a crime against humanity, not subject to amnesty laws. In a late October edition of the magazine "Semana de Colombia," the ex-director of Investigations for the military regime, Ernesto Baeza, was quoted as saying that Pinochet knew of the crime against Prats and his wife.

Marny Requa, Valparaiso,Chile

Pinochet's prospects change daily, as his lawyers maneuver to protect him, but will he ever be convicted? In Chile Judge Guzmán has postponed formally interrogating Pinochet until the appellate court rules on a defense petition seeking to broaden the scope of the medical exams Pinochet must undergo before he is tried. By Chilean law, to avoid prosecution a defendant must be declared mentally unfit; the Pinochet camp would like physical examinations to be taken into consideration as well. The Appellate Court may make a decision in coming days, but Pinochet has additional means of avoiding, postponing, or prolonging the trial. As a retired general, he can refuse to be questioned in person and respond only in writing, which will slow down the process significantly. The defense will also probably fight to have the case heard in the military court; if so, it will likely find its way back to the Supreme Court.

---

Marny Requa is a Master's student in Latin American Studies.