12. The petitioners based their request for nullification of the judgment of the Court Martial on
the following evidence: (1) A resolution handed down by the Ninth Criminal Court of Santiago,
which recognized the existence of an illicit association; (2) Statements by Andrés Valenzuela, a
former agent who participated in this illicit association; (3) Declassified CIA documents that
showed serious procedural irregularities in the trials; (4) A report issued by the National Truth
and Reconciliation Commission (“Rettig Report”) – the entire Chapter III, part two of volume I,
is dedicated to Courts Martial, noting their blatant irregularities; (5) The testimony of survivors
from the Academy of Aerial Warfare, which indicates that the Air Force Prosecutor’s Office and
the Courts Martial operated in the context of the War Academy of the FACH as a clandestine
detention and torture center. Accordingly, at that same place of detention and torture were the
Offices of the Air Force Prosecutor, which meant that the accusers were judge and party in the
complaints against the detainees; (6) Complaints filed on acts perpetrated by this illicit
association, and their investigations in the wake of the proceedings instituted with respect to
these complaints.
13. In response to the motion to reopen the case, and without examining the merits, on
September 2, 2002 the Supreme Court refrained from reviewing the judgments. The
petitioners allege that it was “evident” that the prohibition on taking cognizance of judgments
handed down by military tribunals in time of war lasted only as long as there was a state of
emergency, and that once the state of emergency was lifted, the Court would once again have
full jurisdiction to take cognizance of the rulings of the military courts. This resolution was
challenged through a motion to set aside (recurso de reposición), which was also rejected by
the Supreme Court.
14. The petitioners claimed that the decisions of the Supreme Court violated their rights to due
process (Article 8) and judicial guarantees (Article 25), protected by the American Convention.
Petitioners also claim that the State violated the principle of non- discrimination protected by
Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention, read together with the due process guarantees of
Article 8, which are to be exercised “in full equality,” because the Supreme Court discriminated
against them as a class of persons who were denied the judicial protection for no legitimate
reason. In addition, the petitioners allege that their rights to due process and effective
remedies, set forth in Articles 8 and 25(1), have been violated, as well as their right to appeal
their judgment to a higher tribunal (Article 8(2)(h)). The petitioners also allege a violation of
their right to honor (Article 11) since these convictions have turned them into criminals with all
the stigma that this classification implies. Lastly, the petitioners allege a violation of Articles 9
and 27(2), regarding states of emergency, arguing that the State is not authorized to suspend
judicial guarantees that are indispensable for the protection of rights. Article 9 sets forth the
principles of legality and the prohibition on retroactive application of the laws, which
petitioners claim were violated in these proceedings.
B.
Position of the State
15. As mentioned, the State replied to the petition after the prescribed time period had
expired. The State noted in its response that it was providing information regarding a
complaint that was filed about events that occurred during the military regime in power in
Chile from September 1973 until March 1990.
16. The State noted that the return to a democratic form of government marked the beginning
of a long and arduous process of updating and accommodating its conduct and domestic norms
to international standards in the field of human rights. The most important event in this
process was the approval of the reform of Article 5 of the Constitution, which implied a general
recognition of international treaties in this area. It was agreed among the political forces in
Chile that the exercise of sovereignty recognizes, as a limitation, respect for essential rights,
which emanate from human nature. It is the obligation of state organs to respect and promote
such rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution and also by international treaties to which Chile
is a party and which are in force.
4