Quienes somos ] Boletin ] Busqueda ] Pinochet en Londres ] Centros Detencion ] Complices ] Empresas ] Fallos ] Criminales ] Tortura ] Exilio ] ecomemoria ] Desaparecidos ] Ejecutados ] Testimonios ] English ]

The Case of Guillermo Baltazar Kegevic Julio

Denial of Justice Claim

To the SUPREME COURT

 

 Guillermo Kegevic Ahumada, attorney, on his own behalf and in representation of claimants Dragomir Kegevic Ahumada, Nina Reyes Guzman, Edgardo Zarate Barrera, Francisco Fuentes Nunez, all domiciled for these purposes at 1623 Blanco, Office 1404, in the city of Valparaiso, respectively address the Full Supreme Court:

That, in light of serious irregularities that have occurred in the city of Valparaiso, regarding cases of human rights violations that courts of this city are investigating, the lack of interest, the arbitrary treatment of such cases by those officials who have the obligation to administer justice, we are compelled as citizens to inform entity that protects our Constitution, the Honorable Supreme Court, and to request that it instruct or order an end to the Denial of Justice that affects us at this time.

THE FACTS

On July 9, 2003 Guillermo Kegevic Ahumada and Dragomir Kegevic Ahumada files a criminal complaint for the abduction and torture resulting in death of Guillermo Kegevic Julio, and filed a denunciation for the strange death of former Valparaiso Investigations Chief Luis Bustos Marchant, situations involved the current State Defense Council Attorney General for Valparaiso Enrique Vicente Molina who from 1973 to 1974 served as Naval War Attorney Captain of Justice and his Secretary Patricio Squiavetti Rosas.

An Investigative Judge was requested at the time the Complaint was filed due to the grave nature of the facts of the case and in light of the fact that persons involved and who held direct responsibility for the crimes, held and continue to hold public office. However, the Honorable Court of Valparaiso deemed unnecessary the appointment of a special investigative judge.

I must point out to this Honorable Supreme Court that practically no progress has been made in the investigation of this case.

Subsequently an Interim Judge was appointed to the case, and then a succession of judges and officials resulting in the practical abandonment of the investigation by those ho are vested with responsibility to bring to light the facts of the case and administer justice.

Paradoxically, the case was assigned to the State Defense Council Attorney General Enrique Vicente Molina and to criminal attorney Juan Garcia Bilbao, of the same entity which he directs and who is empowered not only to learn procedural details of the case but also know the contents of the investigation along with the State Defense Council attorneys. In other words, due to his capacity as Attorney General, the Council defends him institutionally, according him all the guarantees and privileges enjoyed by that agency.

On February 20, 2004 a criminal complaint is filed against Enrique Vicente Molina and against all who share responsibility for the Abduction and Torture resulting in permanent disabling injuries committed against Nina Reyes Guzman. The complaint was admitted and joined to the case of Guillermo Kegevic Julio as well as the denunciation for former Investigations chief of Valparaiso Juan Bustos Marchant, followed, in March 2004, with another request for the appointment of a special Investigative Judge, which the Honorable Court of Valparaiso once again turned down.

 The case was assigned to the Second Criminal Court of Valparaiso from which at different times six judges had the court record in their hands, yet nothing was accomplished. On April 28, 2004 we requested authorization to view the investigation records but this petition was denied.

On January 11, 2005 criminal complaint was filed against Enrique Vicente Molina and others for the crimes of Illicit Association, Abduction and Torture resulting in permanent disabling injury of teacher Edgardo Zarate Barrera.

On January 11, 2005 a criminal complaint was filed against Carabinero police officers Marcelo Vargas Goas, Oscar Correa Correa and Guillermo Pena Gonzalez as well as Enrique Vicente Molina and against all who bear responsibility for the crimes of illicit association, abduction and torture committed against Dragomir Kegevic Ahumada.

On January 20, 2005 a criminal complaint is filed against Enrique Vicente Molina and all who bear responsibility for the illicit association, abduction and torture resulting in serious, permanent injury of Francisco Fuentes Nunez.

These last three cases were joined with the criminal complained filed November 29, 2004 by attorney Hector Salazar Ardiles on behalf of the family of former Valparaiso

Investigations Chief Juan Bustos Marchant for the crimes of abduction, application of torments and homicide. An individual who holds major responsibility for these crimes is Enrique Vicente Molina.

On January 6, 2005 attorneys Hector Salazar Ardiles and Guillermo Kegevic Ahumada petitioned the Honorable Court of Appeals of Valparaiso to appoint a special judge to the cases which shall be enumerated below. The Court denied the petition on February 21, 2005 but instructed the judge of the Court of Valparaiso to give particular and personal attention to the cases. This has not occurred,and is unlikely to occur due to the lack of interest to reach a conclusion or sentence that would clarify the facts of these cases.

If the spirit is to let time pass, evidently this will happen, as all human rights cases may be compelled to close on July 26, 2005. In other words the authors, accomplices or accessories to the crimes may benefit from the gift of impunity, whereas the victims of these crimes deserve to know at the very least who tortured them. As this Honorable Supreme Court will recall, most political prisoners were maintained blindfolded, which cowardly protected the criminals who tortured them.

CASES INCLUDED IN THIS CLAIM

All the cases noted below are in process in the Second Criminal Court of Valparaiso.

1. Causa Rol 145.783J

Plaintiff: Guillermo Kegevic Ahumada and Dragomir Kegevic Ahumada

Defendant: Enrique Vicente Molina and all agents of the state who bear responsibility

Denunciation for death of Juan Bustos Marchant

2. Causa Ro134.159J

Plaintiff: Nina Reyes Guzman

Defendant: Enrique Vicente Molina

3. Causa Rol 143.578R

Plaintiff: Hector Salazar Ardiles on behalf of the family of Juan Bustos Marchant

Defendant:

4. Causa Rol 143.613J

Plaintiff: Dragomir Kegevic Ahumada

Defendants: Carabinero police officers Marcelo Vargas Goas, Oscar Correa Correa, Guillermo Pena Gonzalez, Enrique Vicente Molina and others

 5. Causa Rol 143.612J

Plaintiff: Edgardo Zarate Barrera

Defendant: Enrique Vicente Molina and any others who bear responsibility

 6. Causa Rol 143.618J

Plaintiff: Francisco Fuentes Nunez

Defendant: Enrique Vicente Molina

 CASE OF PRIEST MIGUEL WOODWARD IRIBERRY

This case exemplifies how courts of Valparaiso are operating and reflects the situation that affects our own cases.

The case involves the aggravated abduction, torture and disappearance of British priest Michael Woodward Iriberry, in 1973 aboard the Naval Cadet Schooner Esmeralda. Officers of the Navy, civilians and naval attorneys, including the present State Defense Council Attorney Enrique Vicente Molina, are implicated in these crimes.

I must point out that the proceedings in this case have been affected by actions of individuals who have attempted to end the investigation without determining who is responsible for the death and disappearance of the priest. These obstacles became evident to the Higher Courts when the decision was made to remove Judge Gabriela Corti from the case, particularly after legal action against her for obstruction of justice.

Most serious is the manner in which Enrique Vicente Molina has made use of his rank, office and authority to access the court record to gather information for his own benefit in an attempt to obtain the dismissal of the case. It is known that he was allowed to photocopy the entire court record, on the basis of alleged need for the State Defense Council to have the information on hand if it becomes party to the case. This is an absolute falsehood, as the Council has never had the intention of becoming party in this case because its Attorney had involvement in the crime. This justification by Molina was nothing more than a maneuver to obtain access to the investigation.

 In all the cases listed above, for which we seek intervention by the Honorable Supreme Court, the State Defense Council Attorney Molina has had involvement. Therefore, we may conclude that these cases cannot count on a minimum degree of procedural guarantees nor can we expect a positive outcome.

 

CURRENT SITUATION OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF VALPARAISO

 t is necessary that the Honorable Supreme Court become informed on what is happening in the only Criminal Court that continues to function under the former procedural system, and how this affects human rights cases.

1. All cases are practically paralyzed because the officials assigned to the cases are constantly changed, impeding a clear and rational procedural development.

2. There are two judges in this single court who distribute motions and briefs for resolution.

3. The chaos that affects cases is terribe and the quality of officials who remained in this system is extremely poor, or simply lack legal knowledge.

4. Magistrate Maria Elena Gonzalez Barra should be recused, as her son works for the State Defense Council, which means that the personal attorney of Vicente Molina as well as the Council Criminal attorney Juan Garcia Bilbao have access to all information related to the investigation, which is normally off limits to Defendants and to which we as Plaintiffs have no access.

 THEREFORE And in accordance with our rights enshrined by the Constitution, We PRAY that the Honorable Supreme Court will accept our claim for Denial of Justice and order procedures to return constitutional law, equity and justice to Valparaiso.

Filed May 10, 2005

 

  Estas paginas han sido preparadas y son mantenidas por: Proyecto Internacional de Derechos Humanos - Londres 1996 - 2015