|
11.
Case 2735 – David Horacio VARSAVSKY
The IACHR received the following denunciation:
David Horacio VARSAVSKY, C.I. 6.879, 027, DNI 12.549.136, Maure
2239 6p. A, Federal Capital, an Argentine citizen, 18 years of age
(9.18.58), single, a student with secondary school training as an
electronic technician; he was preparing to enroll in the school of
engineering. He worked on radio and television repair. At 9 o’clock
on 2.17.77, he was to be inducted into military service.
At 1.30 pm on 2.16.77, four armed civilians and one person in uniform
came to his home identifying themselves as the police. After searching
the house, they took David Varsavsky with them. When they were asked
why, they replied it was “routine” and that they were taking him
in for interrogation. They took along a photograph of him. When they
were asked where they were taking him, they answered that I should go
to look for him at the Dorrego y Baez command post at 9 o’clock with
identification.
When I went to the place indicated, I found that it was a military
post, and I was informed that there were no detainees there. After
taking down my identification, they told me that I should go to the
Ministry of the Interior. I went to all the military posts throughout
the region asking for the same information and obtained the same
results.
In a note of June 16, 1978, the Government replied:
C.
Persons who are not recorded as detained who are the subject of
a police search by the Ministry of the Interior.
VARSAVSKY, David
Horacio.
In a note dated November 26, 1979, the Argentine Government responded to
the Commission as follows:
References made to the pertinent part of the denunciation stating that
on 2.16.1977, at 1.30 hours, four armed civilians and one person in
uniform, who identified themselves as the police, proceeded to take
away the above-mentioned person. When they were questioned about their
conduct, they said that it was “routine”, that they were taking
him for interrogation, and that his family could visit him at the
Dorrego y Baez command post at 9 o’clock, with identification. Upon
arriving there, it was found to be a military post, and it was stated
that there were no detained persons there.
On February 17, 1977, cognizance was taken of the event described,
because of a presentation made by the alleged detainee’s mother.
Reports were immediately requested from the federal Police and the
Commander in Chief of the Army, who replied that Varsavsky was not
being detained in either of their jurisdictions, nor was there any
information about his whereabouts, and the complainant was so
informed.
In addition, the federal Police reported that four writs of habeas
corpus had been filed with it, and that a warrant for his arrest had
been issued by federal Court Nº 6, Military Law Section, for
violation of Article 44 of Law 17.531 (compulsory military service).
The federal lower Criminal Court, Nº 2, Department 107, also
requested information on his whereabouts, in case Nº 45.181,
regarding illegitimate deprivation of liberty.
Likewise, the judge in charge of the criminal Division of the federal
lower Court also requested information on his whereabouts, in case No.
45.181, regarding illegitimae deprivation of liberty.
The IACHR is continuing prescribed procedures in this case. It finds
however, that the government’s reply does not contain evidence to
discredit the denunciation.
13.
The following cases represent the most common situation: persons
apprehended at night or in the early morning from their own homes by
members of the security forces.
Some examples are the following:
14. Case 2274 –
TARNOPOLSKY Family
The IACHR received the following denunciation:
On July 15, 1976, at approximately 2 am, armed individuals,
identifying themselves as police officers, came to the home of Rosa
Daneman de Edelberg, at 3475 Sarmiento Street, 5th floor,
Apartament J, Buenos Aires. As she went to answer the door, she heard
the voice of the owner’s son-in-law say “Open the door, it’s
Hugo”. The men who were dressed in civilian clothing immediately
asked for Bettina Tarnopolsky, 16 of age, who was living
temporarily in the apartment. They locked up Mrs. Edelberg on the
patio, from where she heard Bettina’s screams. Once the “police”
left, she found that her granddaughter and son-in-law were no longer
there, and objects of value, cash and the identity card of the owner
of the house had disappeared also. The entire apartment had been
searched and the telephone disconnected.
The woman went with her son several hours later to the Tarnopolsky
home, located at 2600 Peña Street, Buenos Aires. The outside door was
entirely destroyed by explosives. No member of the family was there,
and objects of value were missing. Eyewitnesses said that armed
civilians, who called themselves “federal police”, had been there
some hours before, and that, after the house had been pointed out to
them, they proceeded to destroy the entrance with explosives. Later
the witnesses saw Blanca Edelberg the Tarnopolsky and Hugo Tarnopolsky
come out in their night clothes.
Sergio Tarnopolsky was completing his military service assigned to the
Navy Mechanics School. On July 4th, he telephoned members
of his family to report that he was “confined to barracks.” On
July 17th, when inquiries were made at the military post,
the answer was that they knew nothing about him.
That same night, Sergio’s wife, Laura del Duca de Tarnopolsky,
residing at 1335 Pasaje Urutay, was detained.
Hugo Tarnopolsky is an industrial chemist. Blanca Edelberg de
Tarnopolsky is a professor of pedagogy; Bettina Tarnopolsky, 16 years
old, is a high school student. Sergio Tarnopolsky, 21 years old, is a
student of psychology, married to Laura del Luca de Tarnopolsky.
In a note of September 29, 1977, the Government replied:
D. Persons with
no record of arrest, who are being searched for by the police of the
Ministry of the Interior:
71. DEL
LUCA DE TARNOPOLSKY, Laura
75.
EDELBERG DE TARNOPOLSKY, Blanca
145.
TARNOPOLSKY, Bettina
146.
TARNOPOLSKY, Hugo
147.
TARNOPOLSKY, Sergio
The Argentine Government, in response to the Commission’s April 3rd
request for information, responded by a note received March 27, 1980, in
which it denied participation in the alleged acts, and stated as
follows:
Originally, the events were reported to the Argentine authorities as
having been caused by persons who, invoking some official authority,
deprived the missing persons of their freedom. The Investigations were
conducted based on that assumption. However, the claimants no longer
insist on that story; they now refer to the events as simple
disappearances. The same holds true for the additional information
submitted.
None of this is a basis for disregarding that the case as a whole
involves voluntary acts of the alleged victims, which is not
inconsistent with the presence of third parties, who might have acted
as accomplices. This is based on the fact that Bettina Tarnopolsky’s
father accompanied these persons and provided access to the dwelling
where his daughter was.
In addition, it has been determined by statements of the brother of
Blanca Edelberg de Tarnopolsky that another son, named Daniel, left
the country when he learned that his parents had disappeared, and has
settled in France.
The Commission is continuing to process this case. In the Commission’s
judgment the government’s reply does not discredit the facts
denounced.
15. Case 2662
– Alberto Samuel FALICOFF
The Commission heard public testimony from the wife of Dr. Falicoff,
denouncing the detention, imprisonment and torture of Mr. Falicoff by
the security forces. The arrest took place in his residence, in the
presence of his wife, who was also detained and later released. Mrs.
Falicoff signed the testimony.
Doctor
Falicoff, a physician, was practicing in the Cordoba Children's
Hospital and was a member of the Medical Association of that city.
The
Commission considers pertinent the complete transcription of Mrs
Falicoff's testimony:
On Thursday, November 25, 1976, at 18 hours, the bell rang in the
apartment where I lived with my husband, Dr. Alberto Samuel Falicoff
and my son, Alfredo Falicoff, who was then two years of age. I saw
through the peephole four men in civilian clothes standing against the
wall. When they realized I was there, they knocked on the door, and
told me to open it or they would shoot. Since the baby was sitting
watching television in line with the door, I opened it. They quickly
entered and grabbed me by the arms. I was frightened and screamed.
They said, “Keep quiet, for the baby’s sake” and asked me where
my husband was. I replied that he worked at the Clinic. Then they
began to search the house, locking me and my son in his room. They
searched the living room and dining room, dismantled the stove and the
Venetian blinds, and removed the pictures from the walls. I saw this
being done because the baby asked to go to the bathroom and they let
me take him. After half an hour, they ordered me to prepare the baby’s
supper. They were courteous to me and told me they knew that I had
done nothing. They said they had come looking for my husband. After a
while, they brought the janitor in and locked him in the apartment
also. They said they had done this to keep him from warning my
husband. They did the same thing with a neighbor, who came in because
he thought that thieves had broken in. The janitor, who was a very old
man, was very frightened. My husband arrived at about 2 o’clock and
unlocked the door with his keys. When they heard the elevator, they
again sent me to my son’s room. They immediately locked themselves
up with my husband in our room and I began to hear the sounds of a
struggle, pushing and blows. Later, an officer of the Army
Intelligence Service arrived along with another officer.
They were all well dressed, in suits and ties and carrying a walkie
talkie. They came in and out quietly and, on one occasion, brought
sweets and toys for the baby, who behaved very well with them because
they let him touch their revolvers. They told me to prepare clothing
for the baby, since they had decided to take me with them. I asked
them to let him say goodbye to his father and they did so. I then saw
my husband with this hands tied with a cable. I explained to the child
that they were going to take him to his grandmother’s house and I
begged them to do so. I gave them the address of my mother in El Chaco
and her telephone number. Then they took us away. They took the money
we had in our pockets and any jewelry they found. They said that if I
was taking any medicine to bring it with me, and I did so. I went down
in the elevator with my husband and three of them. They put sunglasses
on me with paper pasted on the inside of the lenses. My husband’s
hands were tied. It was 2130 hours. They took us in separate cars. I
was taken in a bright yellow car. I sat in the back of the car with
one of them. The ones in the front seat had not entered the apartment.
They asked, quietly, why my hands were not tied. The one in the back
answered: “That’s no problem.” While we were driving down the
first streets, I tried to see the road; from Patricios, we turned on
Martín García and then on Almirante Brown. Then they realized I was
watching the road, so they pressed my head down on the legs of the one
alongside me, and pointed a revolver at me. After traveling at high
speed for about 20 minutes, we arrived at our destination. The car
stopped and they made me get out and walk about 30 meters. Others came
and asked why they did not bring the car in. They answered the lights
weren’t working and that the high beams were on and they were not
going to enter with the high beams on. We entered a building with a
very large door (a garage door, or perhaps, much bigger). From the
little I was able to see, there was a very large room with no one in
it. They took me down a spiral staircase to a basement. There
they told me to close my eyes and they put a very tight blindfold,
with elastic in the back, on me, which immediately gave me an intense
headache. They handcuffed me and shackled my feet together by a chain
with padlocks on both shackles. They were very tight and had sharp
edges. Then they took me to a kind of cell. The place was full of
these cells. In other words, they were small rooms made of pressed
board or cardboard, with chairs and a small desk in them. They left me
there for a while, and I could hear that they were interrogating my
husband in the cell on one side, but I could not hear what they were
saying.
The interrogation and the detention: I was soon taken to
another room much further away, and they told me to remember that my
number was 103. After half an hour, someone entered and asked me
whether I was going to say anything or whether I preferred to have
them take me in. I said that I knew absolutely nothing. They began by
asking me my name, I.D. number, the name of my parents, brothers, and
my husband, his parents and brothers, and the date and place of my
birth. They left and after a while they returned and asked me to tell
them what my husband was doing in Córdoba. I answered that, because
of his work as a physician, he had been in contact with patients whose
parents were prisoners, and a short while ago, they had begun to ask
him to help them with money, samples of milk, etc. and I knew that he
had only done that because he always brought home cans of milk, used
clothing, books and other food for the prison. Then we decided to move
to Buenos Aires. At that point in the interrogation, other persons
entered. They attached no importance to me, and all of them left. I
began to feel totally exhausted and I slept sitting up. When they
returned, they asked me again for my I.D. number. I actually couldn’t
remember because I felt so exhausted and I told them so. Then they
left. After a while, I began to hear, coming through one of the walls
of pressed board, the sound of a lot of running water, and then the
cries of my husband insulting them and repeatedly calling them “murderers”.
This is repeated approximately every hour, or perhaps less. Obviously
the torture room is next door. On the following day—I guess—they
took me out and led me to a corridor on the same floor. My legs are so
swollen that the shackles begin to cut into my skin. A nurse came who
loosens the shackles and put cotton around my legs. A guard asked him
“Why are you doing that?” and the nurse replied “So… we don’t
have to treat her afterwards”. He asked me why, I, a doctor, had
gotten into this, and he said he didn’t understand how, with all the
money we could earn, we had ended up here. He added that if I needed
anything to ask to speak with Pedro, the nurse, since there were other
Pedros there. There were chairs against the wall on each side, in the
passageway, very close to each other. They told me to close my eyes.
Then they took the mask off and ordered me to open my eyes. I could
not see anything because they were taking photographs and the
flashbulbs blinded me. One of the ones who had been to my house
approached me and put a hood of thick white clothe over my head. He
explained that with that hood they would not bother me. That was
because they were taking people to the torture room according to the
order of their chairs. I could see that, because the door was nearby
and every time they took someone out, the noise of running water and
the desperate screams of pain could be heard, despite the fact that a
record player was constantly playing very loud music. There were
certain songs that they played more frequently, and despite the fact
that the tapes were worn, I could her the lyrics which went roughly:
“and now what are they? Where are they? What are their ideals?”
etc. He wonders why my legs were so swollen. I said that I had a weak
heart and therefore bad circulation. They put another chair in front
of me to put my legs up on. One asked me if I recognized his voice,
and I said he was one of the ones who had been at my home. I asked for
my child and he said “Relax, we have notified your family and they
are coming to get him.” Afterwards I noticed that they brought my
husband to the chair alongside me, because I recognized his pants and
shoes. During the entire time I was there, I heard the same sound; the
loud record player, screams of pain, running water. The guards wore
rubber boots. I suppose a spent an entire day and night there because
the music was interrupted twice when they brought food to the guards
and their superiors. They drank a lot of wine asking the guards to
bring more. I could smell the wine. The Chief came and asked how
things were going. They answered that three persons had died, two men
and one woman. The Chief told them to be more careful because that was
too many for one day. That day they took my husband away a number of
times, and I recognized his screams. Twice I heard his difficult
breathing and it sounded as thought he had swallowed his tongue. The
music stopped and an urgent call for the doctor came over the
loudspeaker. I heard people running, and I heard the doctor say, if
they wanted him alive, that was enough for now, and not to go further.
Then they took me to one of the rooms. This time they took off the
hood, and I saw that several of the ones who had been to my apartment
were there along with one I did not know. They now spoke harshly to me
and again asked me for information. A torturer entered wearing jeans,
a red jacket and rubber boots. He was blond, with a red face, and the
told them “I will give to her”. To me he said: “All right, I’m
in a hurry, tell me whether you know anything, or I will give you the
6 pointed cattle prod.” The others wanted to hurry me. I cried and
said I was telling the truth; I knew nothing; I was not a militant;
and since I did not like such things I consciously knew nothing about
them. They asked me what money we were living on, and I told him ours.
They took me again to the corridor. After several hours, they made
many of the people line up, each with his hands on the shoulders of
the person in front of him. There were probably about ten of us, and
they made us walk, climb stairs, and then take an elevator. We
probably went up about five floors, and there they made us squat down
and told us to stretch out on a mattress. Alongside of me there was a
man who did not comply well, and they kicked and punched him for about
an hour. I immediately fell into a deep sleep. I was completely
exhausted, and I no longer cared what happened to me. I was so
exhausted that, while they were taking me there they pawed me and I
wasn’t even startled. When I awoke they served sandwiches. They made
me sit up, but I could eat only a few mouthfuls. I continued to sleep,
I believe, the entire day, I cannot be sure. I woke up in the morning
and they were distributing a little food to each person in turn. I
felt rested, and tried to find out what was going on. I heard those
with me calling the guard to go to the bathroom. I did the same thing.
Soon one of them made me stand up, and I hit my head on a beam. I
realized that the roof was very low. In the bathroom, the guard took
off my hood. He asked me how old I was, whether I was married, and
whether I had any children. He was a kid about 17 years old. He was
very kind to me and told me to read what was written on my hood. The
words “possible release” were written on the cloth in thread. I
asked what it meant, and he told me they were going to release me. I
asked him why I was there, and he said it was a mistake. His only job
was to see that the prisoners did not speak, did not take off their
hoods, and those who did so, he could beat at will until he knocked
them out. He and the others were taught karate and self-defense. They
were made to read books like Papillon and to hate the
prisoners, about whom the only thing they knew was that they “are
enemies of the country, who want to destroy it, by destroying the
army.” They were kids 15 to 20 years old. Sometimes they were called
kids, but usually they were called by their first names. At night they
were given bottles of wine, and then they became very violent. This
guard told me that some of them were taken on raids, and sometimes
they were given special commendation or merit awards. They were very
proud of that. For example, he told me that the previous day he had
been assigned to go to a house that someone had denounced. It answered
the description, and when the owners tried to escape, they had to
shoot them: a young woman with a child two or three years old. Later
they learned that the people were not involved. He had felt bad about
that, but the persons who denounced innocent people were to blame. He
took me to my place again, and there I continued to spy. I could see
that it was a large “L” shaped room. It was of makeshift
construction on the terrace of the building, since the outer walls
were only one meter high. A peaked roof came down to there. Its
highest part was in the middle of the room, which is where the guards
go. In the angle of the “L” there is a large table where they eat
and a medicine chest and a small file. We were on both sides in sort
of pressed board cubicles about 1 meter high. The cubicles where I was
were makeshift so I was able to move them carefully. The rectangle was
made up of four separate “L” shaped parts. I think that this
detail is very important because of what I am going to tell further
on. That day I realized that they brought someone to the cubicle on my
left, and I heard him barely complain, as though he were very ill. I
thought it was my husband. So I moved over, displaced one of the walls
and changed position (we were laying on the floor on a mattress and a
blanket. That is all we had). I managed to see my husband, shirtless,
with marks everywhere from the cattle prod. I realized that he had no
more than two centimeters in a row of unmarked skin. He breathes
heavily and asks for “water, water”, but his voice is very weak
and it is hard for him to move his tongue so the words do not come
out. A guard came, and told him not to bother them, that they could
not give him water because if they did he would die. They sat us down
and gave us a sandwich and a small bottle of water and a cup of broth.
I hid the small bottle and, when they came back to take it away, they
did not realize it was missing. Then, carefully watching out for the
guards, I put my hands through into my husband’s cubicle and was
able to touch him. I felt that he had a fever. He tried to touch my
hands. Then I passed the water to him and he drank it all. The same
thing happened the next day. A few days later, they let him eat and
gave him water. Little by little he began to recover. Once when the
guards were not watching, we spoke a little. He told me he had gone
out in a car with them, telling him that he was going to take them to
a rendezvous near the Italian Hospital. When they were not paying
attention, he jumped out of the car and a bus ran over his body. He
succeeded in yelling his name so that people could notify his family.
They immediately put him back into the car and when they brought him
back they tortured him more than ever. He tried to encourage me and
told me that he was very proud of me. Every day of the month I spent
there was the same, stretched out on the mattress and constantly
shackled. Sometimes they took the handcuffs off for a few days, and
they took the hood off permanently. The electric light was always on
and the music was always playing loudly. Once a day, after much
begging, they took me to the bathroom. On three occasions, I was able
to take a bath and change into clothing they gave me. While I did so,
the guards would open the door whenever they wished. I had to undress,
bathe and dress again in three minutes. For the bath they took off our
handcuffs, chain and shackles. Meals were always the same: in the
morning, a cup of stew, at noon a meat sandwich and sometimes a cup of
broth, and at night the same. On some days, one or two meals were
omitted. I don’t know exactly how many people were there, but I
estimate that there were about 50. The pregnant women—and there were
many of them—were given special meals; in the morning coffee with
milk, at noon and at night, meat with mashed potatoes, and in the
evening coffee with milk. Sometimes they were given vitamins. Every
day the guards punished two or three persons. They did so for any
reason: because they removed their hoods while they were sleeping,
because they were not lying right; because the guards suspected them
of spying; or for any other reason. The punishment consisted of kicks
and punches for hours until they were left unconscious. The panic is
constant. Only once was the situation reversed: the lights went out
and the guards were frightened and rushed out. Then they realized how
ridiculously they were behaving and then returned, with their weapons
in their hands, saying: “Everybody quiet, don’t move”; but even
their voices were trembling. Another time, the lights went out—it
must have been about December 20th—and we could hear
troops marching past. In the first days they called roll, asking for
the name and number of each person. My husband was on one side of me,
with the number 104. I was number 103; at my other side was number
102, a lawyer whom they had taken from his office in the Palermo area
the same day they took us. I could see him as well as I could see my
husband: he was olive-skinned, had black wavy hair and a beard and was
of average build. He wore a mask. Later I overhead that he was a
veterinarian, and that his sister, a teacher who had been brought in a
month before, had—according to what I’ve heard—recently married
a widower with children. They were going to hold her until her brother
appeared and she did not know where they were. They took her from the
room a few days before I left, and I suppose they released her. They
called one of the prisoners “peg-leg”. He was very near me, and by
his voice seemed to be an older person and very weak. One night the
guards got drunk and began to bet that they could make him stand on
his peg leg. They brought him into the middle of the room and ordered
him to do it. He begged them, said it was impossible, that he was
going to fall. Then they began to kick him, punch him, and they stood
him up. Of course, he fell. They stood him up again, he fell again,
and so on, throughout the night. It was a most macabre spectacle. The
guards went crazy, they beat him without interruption and the poor man
was begging them to stop. There was the sound of blows to the lungs,
the abdomen, the noise of broken bones. They stopped when he fell
unconscious. Afterwards he was delirious for two or three days until
they called the doctor. The doctor said he had many broken bones and
ordered him to be taken away. I didn’t hear him again. In early
December, a transfer occurred. Apparently they were taking away those
who had been there the longest; however, they included among them the
lawyer who was next to me; in all, some 40 persons. They adjusted the
handcuffs, the shackles and the hoods. They assembled them together,
were taking them out when the noise of an airplane was heard that
seemed to be landing nearby. (I shall explain that the sound of
airplanes was very frequent. I also heard a train, and a helicopter,
two or three times every day). After a time, the sound of an airplane
was heard again, then nothing more. I guard asked another where they
were being taken, and he answered: “Fish food”. There were very
few people left in the room, and they changed our places. Fortunately,
my husband and I continued to be next to each other with the same
consecutive numbers. But I shall explain that there were three or four
with the number 100, others with 400, 700, 900, etc. On the following
day, they began to bring in a large number of new people and this
continued for successive days, until they had to put us on the floor,
in the guard’s passageway. Many of them were taken out at night and
were ordered to get dressed. Apparently they were released. Also, when
it rained very hard, (I heard the rain in spite of the noise because
the roof was over our heads) they took out people to release them.
They were careful to have the people well dressed and, in the case of
women, to tie them up as much as possible. I could not see my husband
now, nor speak to him because my new cubicle was completely made of
wood. However, he made friends with an occasional guard—that is, one
who did not work there but came to fill in because many of them were
on vacation. The boy was really very good, and taking a risk himself,
he took us to the bathroom and let us speak to each other without
hoods. Of course he was present, so that we could only speak about
ourselves. My husband had a very small hematoma but the doctor said
that the dislocation was not going to be set because a general
anesthesia would be needed to relax the muscles and that could not be
done there. To do that he would have to be transferred, and transfer
was impossible. He explained that the nurse came by every two or three
days, but never touched anyone; however, they usually gave some
medicine, mostly laxatives, antispasmodics and eye drops, because we
all had conjunctivitis because of the hood and the mask. The guards
had the eye drops; sometimes when somebody said that he needed them,
the guard himself inserted the drops. I began to feel bad. I had
nightmares about my son every night because despite their having told
me that my parents had him, I did not believe them. All of this was
due to the fact that they had taken off the white hood and given me a
gray one like all the others. Also, because of the time that had
elapsed. I realized that there was very little possibility that they
would release me, because the ones they released only stayed a very
short time. I mentioned this to my husband, and he always tried to
encourage me. I spent the day thinking about how to get out, I began
by trying to get to know the place, telling the guard who took me to
the bathroom that with the little water they gave us we were dying of
thirst (which was true) and I offered to carry the bottles as often as
necessary and to do any kind of work, cleaning, etc. I said that from
lying down so much I was beginning to feel weak, and I was afraid that
I would not be able to walk when they took me to my house the
following week (that was pure fabrication). The guard began to take me
to wash the dishes, to the bathroom, to clean up the bathrooms. Some
of the trays and dishes had the seal of the Argentine Army. So the
days passed. There were no windows in the bathroom, but there was a
door locked with a key, which was the guard’s closet. I found it
opened one day, and I saw the guard’s civilian clothing and that the
closet had a window covered with a blanket. I lifted the blanket, and
saw thick grass and a heavy metal screen outside of it. I could see
many tall trees, and at the end, high woven wire, a pick-up truck and
a kind of garage. It would be possible to escape by breaking the
window and cutting the metal screen. We were not very high up, surely
the fourth or fifth floor. Blankets would be needed to climb down. But
was the woven wire electrified? And what lay beyond? I could not see.
Furthermore, we had to take our chains off. They took us to bathe,
they unlocked the padlock with a master key that the chief of the
guards had; he gave it to them only on those occasions. I realized
that my husband was very weak because of everything that had happened,
and that he also had a dislocated shoulder. However, it would be a
question of giving it more thought. One day, while I was washing the
plates, they took me to wash diapers and rubber pants. This impressed
me very much because I realized that there were children on the other
side from where we were. At that time I heard the voice of children
about 4 years of age, asking the guards why their fathers had those
things on their heads. I asked the guard how it was possible for
children to be there. He said that they were the only ones and that
they had been brought with their parents because there was no place to
leave them. However, they were going to be taken away the next day.
Another day I was taken to the linen room to arrange the clothing they
were taking to the laundry, by sex and size. Again I saw children’s
clothing in those places, I heard the voices of women who were working
in the kitchen and sewing torn clothing. When the guards finished
their shifts, they said that they were going to the swimming pool. One
day they took me down to one of the boxes. They took off my hood and
left me alone for a moment. I looked at the walls of the box and was
impressed by the number of bloodstains. Some of them were very high. I
don’t know how they did it but since the stains are very large and
there are small splattered stains around them—monstrous. He came
back and told me to talk to him about something. I told him that I did
not know anything and that the only thing I was thinking about at that
time was my husband and my child; that I had nightmares about my son
and that if they did not release me, I would take my hood and that I
knew very well that that meant that the guards would kill me; that
they should release me, that I did not know why they were keeping me
there. He told a guard to take me upstairs again. On one occasion when
the guard was not watching, I told my husband that I would probably
leave and that he should be on the lookout for times when the guards
were not watching so that we could talk. But there were watching us,
especially from that night until the time of my departure. The
following night, the chief guard came, told me to sit up; he
handcuffed my hands behind met. They picked up my mattress and
searched my cubicle. They felt my breasts and between my legs; they
shoved me around and moved me to another cubicle. During the previous
interrogation, I had been told that, while they knew that I had not
taken part in the activities that led to my arrest, considerable time
had passed since my arrival at the place of detention, and under such
circumstances, I could not leave. I told them that they could not
commit another injustice added to the injustice of my arbitrary
detention, and after an exchange of opinions among themselves, they
proceeded to interrogate me exhaustively on all the circumstances that
I might have observed during my detention. Thus, I was interrogated on
what my opinion was about the treatment the prisoners were receiving,
whether I felt that they were tortured there, whether I had any idea
of where I was, and under what security authority the procedures there
were conducted. To all of these questions I answered that I was
totally ignorant of the details they were asking of me, and that I
felt the treatment was adequate. They asked me what I knew of my
husband and I answered that I knew that he was alive, that I had
recognized his voice when he spoke with the guards, and I denied that
I had seen him. I was led again to my usual place where the guards
handcuffed my hands behind me, and they watched very closely to see
whether I tried to communicate with my husband. That evening, they
sent me to bathe and to change my clothes. The one who told me that I
was going to be released appeared and told me that I was going to
Resistencia, to my mother’s house. He was so drunk that he
threatened me and they handcuffed my hands behind me and sent me to a
cubicle. On one side was a girl having an asthma attack and she was
also handcuffed with her hands behind her. She was frantic because
with the hood she was chocking even more. She had an oxygen mask
beside her, but with her hands tied she could not put in on and she
asked the guards to do it. They didn’t listen to her. After a while,
they got me up and took off my handcuffs and shackles. The drunk guard
came and took me downstairs. Soon I realized from the fresh air that I
was outside. A car approached and they put me in it. It was raining.
They put me in the front seat. The car went round and round many
times. I supposed it was going around in the park of the same building
because I noticed that the road was muddy and the car was skidding
from side to side. Also, it seemed to me that it was turning in the
same places. This went on for a while. Then we went on to an asphalt
road and drove for several hours until they took off the mask that
they had put on me to replace the hood before we left. We were on
General Paz Street. I was alone with the drunken guard. He told me
that I was completely free but not to communicate with my in-laws,
never to go to Córdoba, and not to come out in Buenos Aires for
several months. He repeated that all of my movements were going to be
carefully watched and to remember that they still had my husband. I
told him that I was going to leave the country, and he told me not to,
to let a long time pass; otherwise I would have problems. It was 5 o’clock
in the morning of December 24, 1977. He gave me a document, a Federal
Police I.D., with one of the photos they’d taken of me, but with a
number other than my real one, and a forged signature. He told me to
burn it as soon as I reached El Chaco and to get a duplicate of my
real I.D. He gave me three million pesos, told me to go to the Austral
window, and said that I had passage reserved in the name of Mrs.
Ramos; that if there was no room they were going to take me in the
pilot’s cabin and that I should buy my son a cart for Christmas. He
left me at the airport entrance. My plane left at 9:20 pm. I realized
that there were two men, an 18 year-old youth and a man around 40, who
watched me until the airplane took off. In El Chaco there were almost
always several pairs in cars along the street of my mother’s house
and I never noticed anyone following me, although I hardly went out of
doors for months.
After my release I lived at my house in El Chaco. When I went to the
police headquarters to arrange for my passport, I was told after
lengthy proceedings and psychological harassment that they had
received a denunciation of my disappearance. When they asked who had
made it, I replied that it was my mother. Then they made me sign a
statement that I had been absent from my home voluntarily and for
private reasons. After signing the statement, I was issued a passport
with the warning: “With this record, you can’t leave the country
unless you sign this statement.”
At its 46th session, the IACHR approved a resolution on this
case. The government, in a note dated October 8, 1979, presented its
observations denying any responsibility for the facts denounced.
The Commission undertook a study of the resolution it had adopted, in
view of the fact that the Argentine Government, in its request for a
reconsideration, had submitted new evidence. It decided however, to
maintain all of the above-mentioned Resolution, having found no evidence
to discredit the allegation made by the claimant.
16. Of the reports
obtained by the Commission four cases representative of the following
situation are being included:
a)
Persons at the disposal of PEN, whose arrest was terminated by the
publications of the respective decree in the press. The release,
however, is not implemented and the arrested person passes to the
category of “disappeared”.
b)
Detained persons (either by judicial order or by PEN Decree) who become
“disappeared”, the authorities claiming that they were released or
that they had been transferred, without specifying, however, under which
decree or legal provision this has been accomplished.
c)
Persons who were detained in military or police establishments without a
judicial order or PEN decree or formal warrant from a competent
authority, and whose relatives are advised, verbally or in writing, that
they have been set free or that they have been transferred, without
giving any further information or deliberately providing false
information. In effect, the detained person has passed into the category
of “disappeared.”
d)
Persons who disappeared at the time of their arrest, in which cases
writs of habeas corpus were denied when presented. Their names,
however, appear in official communiqués as having been set free
by virtue of certain decrees. Later inquiries reveal, however, that they
continue among the “disappeared”.
According to the testimony received by the IACHR it is found that these
operations are different from the usual. One of the testimonies states
the following:
Most of the arrests were carried out without the usual violence used
in anti-subversive operations; there have also been no denunciations
of theft perpetrated by the forces involved in the operation, who
identify themselves properly.
In almost all cases the detained persons were visited by members of
their family, and when the detention was for longer periods, they were
accorded normal visiting schedules.
In a small number of cases, of category “C”, the detention period
was very short and the members of the family did not have access to
the prisoner. However, in all cases they were informed by officials in
charge of the detention center that the person had been detained at
that site, even though they did not always reveal specifically up to
what date and the reasons why they were no longer there.
Frequently, there are cases of successive transfers until all trace is
lost.
The time of the assumed release never coincides with the presence of
members of the family at the site, nor are they informed of their
release ahead of time, in spite of their assiduous visits in search of
information. In one case, after having read the arrest decree of their
daughter, the parents took turns, for 60 hours awaiting information
about her in the offices of the federal coordination. But at the end
of that time they were advised that the arrested person “had just
left through the other door.”
That testimony goes on to state:
In a great number of cases the penal, police or military authorities
reason that the detained person was released late at night, shielded
by the procedural rules (now modified) that require a release to be
effected before midnight of the date set in the decree or judicial
order. But these same provisions did not prohibit the release from
being effected early in the morning when there might be witnesses
present, leaving the offices in question, especially when the offices
were far from any populated area.
In the case of those detained at the disposition of the PEN, or those
being kept in police jails who were visited by relatives, the mock
release is made necessary so that the individuals in question can be
passed on to the category of “disappeared” without giving rise to
legal claims.
Some of the examples of this type of case are:
17. Case 3410 – Carlos Hugo CAPITMAN
The IACHR has received the following denunciation:
At approximately 3 pm, on March 28, 1976, while in the company of
Laura Noemí Creatora,
Alicia Amelia Arriaga and Carlos Alberto Spadavecchia, at the door of
the house on Sarmiento Street Nº 1426, Buenos Aires, he was arrested
with his three companions by a police and military squad. The four
persons in question were taken to a number of places, and were hooded
and mistreated—according to statements made by two of them at a
later date--. No official information was given to their families, who
learned of the arrest from the person in charge of the building at
Sarmiento 1426, who witnessed the event.
The search for the four young people was unsuccessful, but
approximately twenty days later, Alicia Amelia Arriaga and Carlos
Alberto Spadavecchia appeared alone; they had been abandoned in the
early morning hours, in an isolated place far away from Buenos Aires.
It was known that during their captivity they were tortured, and that
at the same time that they were taken out of the place of detention,
Carlos Hugo Capitman and Laura Noemí Creatore were also taken out,
however they were taken away in different vehicles.
Having no news of the disappeared persons Carlos Hugo Capitman and
Laura Noemí Creatore, writs of habeas corpus were introduced
before the courts of Buenos Aires, requesting information from the
Executive as to whether they were in detention. The reply was
affirmative, by virtue of Decree Nº 39 of April 6, 1976, although the
place of detention was not indicated. Therefore, the Court was asked
to indicate the place of arrest, but the lower court judge declined to
request this, since as he understood it, the Executive was not
obligated to provide this information. This ruling was appealed and
the Court of Appeals sustained the lower court decision and the
information. In view of this situation, a writ of Amparo was
filed on behalf of Carlos Hugo Capitman in the federal lower Court.
During the processing of same, the Ministry of the Interior attached a
copy of the Decree of detention Nº 39 dated April 6, 1976.
Also, after several inquiries by the Judge, Dr. Sarmiento, to learn
the place of detention, the Ministry of the Interior reported that:
The arrest, at the disposition of the PEN of Carlos Hugo Capitman and
Laura Noemí Creatore has been declared null and void through Decree
Nº 1907, of September 3, 1976; Carlos Hugo Capitman is thirteenth
on the list in this Decree containing the names of 62 persons that
have ceased to be under the control of PEN, and Laura Noemí Creatore
is twelfth.
Given this confusion, on February 22, 1977—8 months after the
initiation of the writ of Amparo,--Judge Sarmiento ruled that
it be implemented, and notified the Ministry of the Interior that
within ten days the Court be informed as to the specific circumstances
of how, when, and where, Carlos Hugo Capitman, was released. A copy is
attached. This ruling was appealed by the district attorney, and sent
to the federal Court of Appeals; on May 8, 1978—15 months after the
lower court ruling—that Court of Appeals ruled that: this Tribunal
notes the contradiction as to the day on which the order of release
was issued by the PEN by virtue of Decree Nº 1907 of 9.3.76, and the
reports attached on pages 29, 32 and 75, which cannot be disregarded;
but since active military personnel or police working under the
military can be held liable for an illegal act, this fact must be
brought to the attention of the military court so that it can judge
whether an illegal act has or has not been committed by the
above-mentioned forces.
Thereafter, in the same month of May, the Permanent Assembly for Human
Rights in Argentina published in the newspaper “La Prensa” of
Buenos Aires, a letter addressed to the President of the Nation,
requesting information regarding 2,500 missing persons, among them,
Carlos Hugo Capitman.
On June 3, 1978, the Ministry of the Interior reported the whereabouts
of 87 persons who had erroneously been included in the list of
2,500, since a certain number of them are free; included on
this list was Carlos Hugo Capitman.
All of this demonstrates that the Ministry of the Interior has not
taken cognizance of the ruling of the federal Court of Appeals and
that Carlos Hugo Capitman has not as yet appeared.
No satisfactory information was ever obtained on his place of
detention, or his fate.
The Argentine Government, in a note received by the IACHR on March 27,
1980, confirmed the detention and release of Mr. Capitman; it denied any
responsibility for his subsequent disappearance. It said that the result
of the inquiries made to shed light on the alleged disappearance of this
individual show that both Carlos Hugo Capitman and Laura Noemí Creatore
left Argentina for Carrasco, Uruguay, on 9.10.76, on Flight 310 of the
Austral Company.
This information has been transmitted to the claimant whose observations
the IACHR is now awaiting.
18. Case 2266
– Jorge SAN VICENTE
The following denunciation was received by the Commission:
Jorge San Vicente, 22 years old, resident at Hudson Street 849, Villa
Maipú, Province of Buenos Aires, was arrested on April 29, 1976. On
that day, San Vicente was going to work at Maipú 42, Buenos Aires,
where he remained for the full day of work. That night he did not
return home. On May 1, a search and seizure operation was effected by
persons who stated that they belonged to the federal police; at that
time the alleged police officers told the members of his family that
Jorge San Vicente was detained in the “Narcotics Section” of the
police station. However, during the next six months, successive writs
of habeas corpus, letters addressed to the government, military
authorities, and other endeavors to locate him, all ended
unsuccessfully.
The Government of Argentina in a note dated September 29, 1977, replied
as follows:
D. Persons for
whom there are no previous records of detention and who are the
subject of a police search by the Ministry of the Interior:
141.
SAN VICENTE, Jorge
In connection with this case, the Commission felt it useful to include
two communications, one of which confirms the detention while the
other denies it.
The first is as follows:
To the Federal Judge of the lower Court Nº 16, Dr. Gustavo Mitchel,
Secretary José U. Martínez Sobrino.
… In answer to your telegram of September 6, 1976, with regard to
the filing of habeas corpus, case Nº 4649 allow me to inform you that
Jorge San Vicente has been detained at the disposition of the Special
Military Tribunal Nº ½.
Signed
Jorge Carlos Olivera Rovere
Brigadier General
2nd Commander and
Chief of Staff
Army Corps Command
Furthermore, the Commission has in its possession a photocopy of the
note dated September 15, 1976, from the Command of the First Army Corps,
signed by Colonel Luis René Florey. That note states: “We have no
information with regard to the alleged detention of Jorge San Vicente
within this Command.”
At its 45th session the Commission adopted a Resolution on
the case.
In a note dated June 11, 1979, the Government of Argentina replied to
the Commission, denying its responsibility for the detention and
subsequent disappearance of the individual in question. After
considering the reply of the Government, the Commission felt that its
request for reconsideration was unfounded, since the request did not
present significant new evidence, and especially since it did not change
the fact that the two authorities contradicted each other with regard to
Mr. San Vicente’s detention and since no convincing clarification had
been given to weaken the claimant’s allegations.
19.
Case 3842 – Guillermo SEGALLI
The IACHR received the following denunciation:
Guillermo Oscar Segalli, Argentine, D.N.I. 10.810.499, was detained on
a public street together with his girlfriend; after a week of being
held incommunicado they were found and placed at the
disposition of the Executive (PEN) under Decree 1843 of August 1976
and held for 17 months without charges, Miss Alonso in the Villa
Devoto Prison and Guillermo in Prison Unit Nº 9 of La Plata.
They were detained for having provided assistance to a Committee of
relatives of political prisoners; Guillermo never maintained any other
relations with political or subversive individuals or organizations.
At the time of his detention, he was working with his father and
preparing to begin work in an important firm.
While he was in detention, he requested and obtained permission to
exercise his option to leave the country for Italy, as it seemed the
only course to obtain his release from prison.
However, in January 1978, when Guillermo’s girlfriend was about to
be released, it was assumed that he would be released at the same
time; in fact, on January 28, 1978, the news of the revocation of the
warrant for his arrest was published in all the newspapers.
The prison authorities were immediately asked for information about
when and how he would be released; likewise the Italian Consul
stationed in that city was also in contact with the prison authorities
for the same purpose, but the same answer was received by both: that
there was no further news.
Guillermo was visited on February 1, 1978, as he regularly was once
every week, and he was found to be optimistic about the good news.
His visitor, upon leaving, again asked for information on Guillermo’s
release, but obtained none, although there was never any doubt that
the matter would be satisfactorily resolved.
Matters turned out quite differently, however, and although several
prison authorities gave very contradictory and confused reports a few
days later, to the effect that Guillermo had been released at midnight
on February 2, 1978, in fact there has been no information as to his
whereabouts since that time, in spite of the many inquiries made of
the Ministry of the Interior, the federal and local police and other
agencies.
Many people living near the prison, and even some people in the
prison, have informed us confidentially that, in fact, on that night
four inmates were taken from the prison and presumably, Guillermo was
among them; that they were taken away in a vehicle which was parked in
the security zone of the prison, to which only the prison authorities
had access.
During the second week of February 1978, a writ of habeas corpus
was filed with the circuit courts in the city of La Plata and another
in the federal Court under Dr. Rafael Sarmiento; both petitions were
unsuccessful. On March 13, 1978, another writ of habeas corpus
was filed in Court Nº 3 under Dr. Guillermo Rivarola, Office of Court
Clerk Dr. Enrique Guanziroli, who, on March 21, 1978, issued a
subpoena, as a result of which the prison staff members allegedly
involved in Guillermo’s release appeared before the courts of La
Plata; but this did nothing to clarify the bewildering event, and
although many months have passed the matter remains unexplained.
The Government of Argentina informed the IACHR, in a note dated March
27, 1980, of the following:
In this regard it should be pointed out that the individual in
question was detained and placed at the disposition of the Executive
under Decree Nº 1843 of August 31, 1976, for action that endangered
internal peace, security and public order, on the basis of the powers
granted to the President under Article 23 of the Constitution.
Subsequently, as the causes that led to his arrest ceased to have
validity, the Executive decided, through Decree Nº 162 of January 26,
1978, to invalidate this measure, and release Segalli on February 2,
1978 at midnight. No information is available with regard to his
whereabouts.
The IACHR is processing this case. It notes, however, that the
Government’s reply does not provide sufficient evidence to discredit
the facts denounced.
[ Table
of Contents | Previous | Next ]
|
