Report No. 133 (1999) IACHR. Case No. 11.725 (Chile)

• Report Number: 133
• Year: 1999
• Case Number: 11.725
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Chile
• Alleged Victim: Carmelo Soria Espinoza

REPORT Nº 133/99; CASE 11.725; CARMELO SORIA ESPINOZA; CHILE; November 19, 1999 I. SUMMARY 1. Mr. Carmelo Soria Espinoza (hereinafter “Carmelo Soria”), 54 years of age and of dual Spanish and Chilean nationality, was working as chief of the editorial and publications section of the Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) in Chile. CELADE is an agency of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and part of the United Nations (UN) system. Accordingly, Mr. Soria has the status of international official. On July 14, 1976, as he was leaving work, he was kidnapped by security agents of the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (hereinafter “DINA”) and subsequently murdered. His body and car were left in a stream. The Chilean courts determined that State agents participated in the crime and their identities were established. However, pursuant to Decree Law Number 2.191 from 1978, known as the self-amnesty law (hereinafter "the self-amnesty law" or "the Amnesty Law"), criminal prosecution was dismissed, allowing the crime committed by these agents to go unpunished. Members of the victim’s family submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the "Commission" or "IACHR") alleging the violation of their right to justice and requesting that the Commission declare the Republic of Chile (hereinafter "the Chilean State," "the State of Chile," or "Chile") responsible for the violation of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the "American Convention"). 2. Based on the Commission's analysis, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile from May 24, 1996, and other sources, the Commission concludes that State agents violated the rights to liberty, personal integrity and life of Carmelo Soria, enshrined in Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter "the American Declaration"). The Commission also concludes that the dismissal of the criminal proceedings brought concerning the detention and disappearance of Carmelo Soria Espinoza affects the petitioners' right to justice and, therefore, the Chilean State is in violation of its international obligations under Articles 8 and 25, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; that the self-amnesty law is incompatible with the American Convention, which was ratified by Chile on August 21, 1990; that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Chile declaring compulsory the application of the aforementioned Amnesty Law as constitutional, at a time when the American Convention had already entered into force in Chile, constituted a violation of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention; that the Chilean State has not complied with Article 2 of the American Convention in that it has not adapted its laws to the provisions of the Convention; that Chile failed to comply with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons as a result of adopting the Amnesty Law and because its judicial administration bodies have failed to punish the perpetrators for the crimes committed against Carmelo Soria. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. On February 15, 1997, Carmen Soria González Vera, the victim’s daughter, assisted by the attorney Alfonso Insunza Bascunan, filed a petition with the Commission, dated January 31, 1997. The petitioners accuse the State of violating the right of access to justice in the case of Mr. Carmelo Soria Espinoza and request that the Commission declares the Amnesty Law as incompatible with the obligations of Chile under the American Convention. 4. In a note dated February 24, 1997, without prejudging the admissibility of the petition, the Commission brought the petition to the attention of the State of Chile and requested that it present pertinent information with regard to the same. 5. On July 24, 1997, the Chilean State requested an extension of 30 days to submit the relevant responses. On July 30, 1997, the Commission granted the State of Chile the extension of 30 days requested and informed the petitioners that it had done so. 6. On August 14, 1997, the State of Chile submitted its response to the petition, which was transmitted to the petitioners on August 20, 1997, requesting their observations to Chile's response and any new or additional information to be considered by the Commission. 7. In a communication from October of 1997, the petitioners submitted their observations to Chile's response. These comments were transmitted to the Chilean State on December 15, 1997. 8. In a note dated December 31, 1997, the State of Chile transmitted its observations to the petitioners’ reply with respect to the Chilean State's response to the original petition. The State of Chile's observations were transmitted to the petitioners on January 16, 1998. 9. On June 22, 1998, in light of the requirements and characteristics of this case and in accordance with Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention and Articles 54(1) and 54(2) of the Commission's Regulations, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement in this case based on the respect for human rights. 10. On July 20, 1998, the State of Chile responded to the Commission’s proposal. The State indicated that, notwithstanding the difficulties it had encountered in reaching a friendly settlement in this case, it reiterated its willingness to remain open to solutions that might help reach an agreement with members of the victim’s family. 11. On November 13, 1998, the petitioners informed the Commission that the members of Carmelo Soria’s family were not in Chile at that moment and requested an additional period of 45 days during which to respond to the Commission’s friendly settlement proposal. 12. The Commission convened a hearing during its 102nd Regular Session for the purpose of hearing the parties' final arguments. This hearing took place on March 3, 1999, and was attended by the petitioner, Carmen Soria Gonzalez Vera, and the State's representative, Mr. Alejandro Salinas of the Chilean Foreign Ministry. During this hearing, each party had the opportunity to present their arguments. At that time, the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of the parties for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement once again. The petitioners stated that it was not possible in the present case to reach a friendly settlement consistent with the respect for human rights as envisioned in Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention and Articles 54(1) and 54(2) of the Commission’s Regulations. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 13. In their petition, the petitioners provide a description of the facts based on the conclusions reached by the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation when it investigated the Carmelo Luis Soria Espinoza case, which are as follows: On July 16, 1976, the Spanish economist and United Nations official, a socialist party activist, Carmelo Luis Soria Espinoza, was killed by agents of the DINA. The victim had been detained the previous day. The following day, his automobile was thrown into the El Carmen canal in the Piramide district, by a number of agents, with the keys in the ignition but without the radio or seats, except the driver’s seat. A bottle of pisco was placed in the car to simulate an accident. The victim’s body was thrown into the same canal and was found on July 17th, one kilometer from where the car was found. The Commission was convinced that Carmelo Soria had been executed by State agents in violation of his human rights. The report adds: “Carmelo Soria was Spanish and came under the decree concerning Chileans with dual nationality. He was married, had three children, and was 54 years of age. He was an activist in the Spanish Communist Party, an official of the United Nations, and at the time of his death was working in CELADE. On July 15, 1976, he was detained by DINA agents as he was leaving his office to return home. The following day, on July 16, his body was found near his automobile in the El Carmen canal in Santiago, his death having resulted from actions by DINA agents, who crashed the car to make the death appear accidental." 14. The petitioners allege that, even though it had been judicially determined that Carmelo Soria Espinoza had been murdered by DINA agents, the State of Chile, through its jurisdictional bodies, declined to impose the punishment provided for under law. The petitioners add that civil or criminal disciplinary measures against the officials directly responsible for acts contrary to international law or in violation of human rights were necessary as a consequence of the State’s responsibility and for the purpose of ensuring its preventive function. 15. The petitioners maintain that, instead of applying disciplinary measures, the Chilean State applied the Amnesty Law, granting amnesty to the authors, accomplices, and accessories involved in the cover-up of crimes committed between September 11, 1973, and April of 1978. According to the petitioners, the State also declared that the criminal responsibility of the accused, Guillermo Salinas Torres and José Ríos San Martín, was terminated as a result of the Supreme Court's judgment dated August 23, 1996, upholding that of June 4, 1996, dismissing the case against these individuals because the actions investigated in the case occurred within the period of time covered by the aforementioned law. 16. The petitioners add that the decision from December 30, 1993, in which the judge denied the petition to declare the final dismissal null and void in virtue of the amnesty law, was based on the following facts: Based on the merits of this case, it is justified that on July 14, 1976, Carmelo Soria Espinoza, a Spanish citizen who also enjoyed Chilean nationality and worked in our country as chief of the editorial...