6.
On April 22, 2005 the petitioner submitted its observations to the State’s report, the pertinent
parts of which were forwarded to the State on June 22, 2005. Additionally, on July 18, 2005, the petitioner
submitted additional information. On May 18, 2009, the Commission requested updated information from the
parties. On March 15, 2011, the Commission again asked the petitioner for information. On September 22, 2013,
the petitioner reported a change in representation for the petition in question, indicating that Attorney
Macarena Sáez Torres had assumed the position of representative. In addition, on January 29, 2014, the
petitioner submitted additional information.
7.
With respect to the State, the May 18, 2009 request for information was reiterated on
November 11, 2011, November 27, 2013, May 21, 2014, and June 6, 2014.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioner
8.
According to the petition, Mr. Mario Galetovic Sapunar was an administrator and partner in
the radio station “La Voz del Sur,” together with Messrs. Daniel Ruiz Oyarzo, Carlos González Jaksic, Oscar
Santiago Mayorga Paredes, Hugo René Formantel Díaz, and Nestor Edmundo Navarro Alvarado. He states that the
alleged victims owned the radio station through the business corporation “Ruiz y Compañía Ltda.” The station
operated in Punta Arenas, Magallanes, “the southernmost city in Chile.”
9.
The petitioner alleged that on September 11, 1973 forces that reported to the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Chile took control of the radio station’s facilities. The petitioner stated that this
situation remained in effect for some months, until Order 473, issued by the Ministry of the Interior in 1974,
declared “the corporation’s property status under study,” and barred it from entering into legal transactions or
contracts pertaining to its assets. Similarly, the petitioner stated that the order required them to provide an
explanation, within 10 days, of the assets in their possession, “under the warning that they were considered to
belong to dissolved political parties.” The petitioner stated that, given the circumstances in Chile, many of the
individuals summonsed to appear were reportedly deprived of their liberty, disappeared, dead, in hiding, or in
exile, and therefore the requirement was “unlawful” and “impossible to meet.” Additionally, the petitioner
asserted that the corporation was declared dissolved by virtue of Order 1163 issued by the Ministry of the
Interior in 1974, which ordered that all of its assets be turned over to the Chilean State, and that the tax
authorities had therefore become the successor to the corporation’s assets.
10.
The petitioner maintained that once democracy was restored in Chile a national debate arose
for the return of confiscated assets. Nevertheless, in view of the apparent delays in that debate, the alleged
victims decided to file a civil action in September 1995 seeking the nullification of Orders No. 473 and No. 1163,
both of 1974, and consequently the restitution and return of their assets. He stated that the action was heard
and decided by the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago. At that trial, according to the petitioner’s account, the
Chilean tax authorities asserted as their main defense the lawfulness of the Military Government’s actions and
the application of the statute of limitations in the State’s favor. They alleged that this case “took quite a long
time,” and that it was adjudicated in November 1997 in the plaintiffs’ favor, against the Chilean State. According
to the case file, the State challenged that decision, but the Santiago Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision.
11.
The petition stated that the tax authorities filed a petition for cassation in 2003 before the
Chilean Supreme Court, challenging the above-cited decision. According to the allegations, during this period
of time the Congress of the Republic passed Law 19.568 on the return of assets, ordering the return of—but not
compensation for—assets to the affected parties, organizations, and individuals. In addition, it required those
who availed themselves of the return of assets to withdraw any pending legal actions, and provided a one year
final deadline for applying to the Ministry of National Assets. The petitioner observed that the Law was enacted
after the Chilean Supreme Court held “invariably” that actions seeking the nullity of public laws are not subject
to statutes of limitation and therefore the State of Chile had to return the assets and compensate the affected
private parties.
2