RESOLUTION Nº 20/82
March 8, 1982
1. A communication
was sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March 22,
1978 denouncing the arbitrary detention of Robledo, in the following
Palma Robledo, of Chilean nationality, identity card Nº 2.309.992-6 of
Santiago, residing at Obispo del Solar Nº 5792.
Palma Robledo was arbitrarily detained by elements of what was formerly
the National Intelligence Bureau (DINA) at about mid-day on August 4,
1976 on Avenida Matta between Arturo Prat and San Diego, according to
the background information which I shall give here.
the day and at the time indicated, Daniel Palma was driving his light
blue Renault car, model 4s, motor Nº 5115950. A parking attendant saw
him come out the post office on the Avenida Matta between the streets
indicated, get into his car and go off.
investigations in the First and Eighth Criminal Courts produced no
result. The various authorities were ordered to investigate but no
clarification was forthcoming.
the same time as the denunciations were brought before the First and
Eighth criminal Courts, the vehicle that he was driving at the moment of
his detention was reported missing to the Fourth Criminal Court, which
had jurisdiction over the case since the vehicle disappeared on the
Avenida Matta between Arturo Prat and San Diego.
the Fourth Criminal Court had heard this case, Case Nº 109866, orders
were given for an investigation to which the Vehicle Search Section of
the Carabineros Bureau, among others, was assigned. In one of their
investigations in March 1977, searching for another Renault, which had
also disappeared, Carabinero officials from that Section discovered not
only the vehicle they were looking for, but another one as well, also
painted red. This latter turned out to be the vehicle that he was
driving at the time ha was detained. The place, garage or unit where the
two vehicles were found was under the responsibility of sergeant
Heriberto Acevedo Acevedo of the Carabineros and First Corporal Manuel
Jesús Leyton Robles of the Army, both under the authority of DINA.
this background Information was added to Case Nº 109866, In which
orders were given to substantiate the crime and to determine the
responsibility of the individuals in charge of the unit where the
vehicle had been found.
responsible for custody of the automobile, i.e., Sgt. Heriberto Acevedo
Acevedo of the Carabineros and First Corporal Manuel Jesús Robles of
the Army, together with an Army Second Corporal, brother of the above
(who at that time was only visiting the place), were placed at the
disposal of the Military Prosecutor. Mr. Joaquin Eribaum Thomas was
named ad hoc prosecuting attorney and Case Nº 242-77 was started. The
Army Second Corporal died two days after he was detained.
only remaining witness to what happened is Sgt. Heriberto Acevedo
Acevedo of the Carabineros. The only information on him is that he is
said to be in detention, but there is no knowledge as to where. All
efforts to find him in order to talk to him and discover what happened
to the individual driving the car found in his possession have failed.
order to continue his investigations, the Judge of the Fourth Criminal
Court officially requested that the Carabinero Sergeant be placed at his
disposal. The replies were evasive, and when an attempt was made to take
this matter to the Honorable Court of Appeals, the Military Prosecutor's
office forwarded a request asking that the files on Case Nº 101-866 on
the rolls of the Fourth Criminal Court be forwarded to it in order to
join them to Case Nº 242-77 before the Military Prosecutor.
is the point we have reached to our search for the truth, and they are
now stonewalling on giving out any information. This topic is tabu for
the military authorities and the military judicial system.
2. In a note dated
June 9, 1978, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the
denunciation to the Government of Chile and asked It to supply such
information as it considered pertinent and any other information that
would enable the Commission to judge whether or not domestic remedies
have been exhausted in the case that is the subject of the present
3. In a note dated
June 9, 1978, the Commission wrote to the claimant acknowledging
receipt, and informing him of how his communication had been dealt with.
4. Having received
no reply from the Government, the Commission repeated its request for
information in a note dated November 10, 1981. It informed the
Government of the possible application of Article 39 of the Regulations
unless such information were received within a reasonable time.
1. The pertinent
requirements established in Article 20 of the Commission's Statute and
in other relevant rules of the Statute and of the Regulations have been
communication sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
denounced the arbitrary detention by elements of the National
Investigations Center (CNI), (formerly the National Intelligence Bureau,
DINA), of Daniel Palma Robledo, and his subsequent disappearance,
together with the theft of a light blue 1972 Renault automobile, license
plate VI 552, that he was driving at the time of his detention;
3. The vehicle in
question was found by the police in the possession of DINA officials
Carabinero Sergeant Heriberto Acevedo Acevedo and Army First Corporal
Manuel Jesús Leyton, and legally identified as belonging to Mr. Daniel
4. The two DINA
officials were arrested and were place at the disposal of the Military
Prosecutor's Office, under the responsibility of the ad hoc Military
Prosecutor Joaquín Erlbaum Thomas, without further judicial procedure;
5. The Government
of Chile has not yet responded to the Commission's request for
6. Article 39 of
the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been
transmitted to the government of the state in reference shall be
presumed to be true if, during the maximum period set by the Commission
under the provisions of Article 31, paragraph 5, the government has not
provided the pertinent information, as long as other evidence does not
lead to a different conclusion.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
1. In application
of Article 39 of its Regulations, to presume the events denounced to the
Commission, in the communication of March 22, 1978, concerning the
arbitrary detention and disappearance of Daniel Palma Robledo, to be
2. To declare that
the Government of Chile violated the right to life, liberty and personal
security (Article I), and the right of protection from arbitrary arrest
(Article XXV) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
3. To recommend to
the Government of Chile: a) that it order a full and impartial
investigation to determine responsibility for the events denounced, b)
that it punish those responsible for such acts according to Chilean Law,
and c) that it inform the Commission within 60 days as to the measures
taken to put these recommendations into practice.
4. To communicate
this resolution to the Government of Chile in light of Article 50.2 of
the Regulations of the Commission, for all pertinent purposes.
5. To include this
resolution in the Annual Report to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States, in accordance with Article 50.4 of the
Regulations of the Commission, if the Government of Chile does not adopt
the stated recommendations within the above mentioned time period.