|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.34
REPORT
ON THE STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHILE Findings
of “on the spot” Observations in
5.
In another note, of October 25, 1973, the Commission expanded on the
request for information it had sent the Government of Chile on October 24.
Since this new communication resulted in a very extensive and documented
reply from the Government of Chile, it is considered necessary to reproduce both
documents: Cali, Colombia October 25, 1973
Mr. Minister:
In our note of October 24, 1973, we submitted to you a request for
information on aspects that we considered most urgent to examine in connection
with the present status of human rights in our sister Republic.
We have sent that note in accordance with the generous offer contained in
a note sent to this Commission by the Acting Representative of Chile to the OAS,
Mr. Olegario Russi M., dated October 5 (Nº 709), in which he informed us that
“the Government of Chile is ready and able to provide to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights any information that may be required with respect to
the status of human rights in Chile, provided the concrete points that the
Commission is interested in knowing are specifically detailed.
Today, by means of this communication, we wish to expand our request for
information to cover other matters of a general nature, to supplement the
information in the documents supplied by the distinguished Government of Chile
through the Executive Secretary of our Commission.
The matters on which we would be very grateful if your distinguished
Government would provide us information are the following:
1. Complete text of the decree-laws
and other acts promulgated by the Government Junta, which affect, or might
affect, human rights.
2. General guarantees on human
rights. Are all or any of the general guarantees on human rights referred to
in the decree-laws mentioned in the preceding paragraph still suspended? Is the
right to take an appeal of “habeas corpus” to independent regular courts
suspended? Are civilians brought—or can they be brought—to trial before
military courts in some cases or in general? For how long—as a maximum—can a
person be deprived of his liberty without being brought before a regular court?
Is it mandatory for every person brought to trial to have defense counsel and
for the guarantees of “due process” to be applied in handling his case?
3. Mass communication media.
Is there a system of censorship, suspension or closure affecting the press,
radio and television, or any other media? Are radio stations subject to a policy
ensuring free expression of thought? Is it possible to shut down any of these
media or cancel their licenses, without recourse to independent courts of
equity? Has any system of censorship or control on the sale or circulation of
books or printed matter been established for ideological reasons?
4. Status of individuals deprived
of their freedom. Are persons deprived of their freedom for political
reasons or for reasons of public security, subject to the same living conditions
and discipline as those detained, indicted, or sentenced for common crimes? Are
the two kinds of detainees confined in the same establishments? Are those
detained for political reasons or for reasons of public security permitted to
receive visits from members of their family? How frequently? Are they permitted
to receive reading material? Are they permitted to communicate with defense
counsel? Without the presence of officials who can overhear their conversations?
Have special provisions been adopted to guarantee correct treatment for women
deprived of liberty for political reasons or reasons of public security? Have
steps been taken to avoid abuse or maltreatment of prisoners? Do prisoners have
medical service available to them? Have provisions been made, in the event of
the death of persons detained for political reasons of for reasons of public
security, to have an autopsy performed in the presence of one or more physicians
designated by the family?
Reiterating to Your Excellency the appreciation of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights for the broad and generous collaboration in the
performance of our duties that the distinguished Government of Chile has
provided us, we are very pleased to take this opportunity to present our most
cordial and respectful greetings. Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga Chairman
His Excellency Admiral Ismael Huerta Díaz
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Santiago, Chile
Republic of Chile
Minister of Foreign Affairs
JLE/mic
Bureau of International Agencies
Nº 1977
Santiago, January 10, 1974
I have the honor to reply to your October 25 note sent from Cali,
Colombia, in which Your Excellency, in response to the collaboration offered by
my Government to provide the Commission over which you preside any information
required in connection with the status of human rights in Chile, requests
background information on this matter, to supplement the information that was
personally delivered to Dr. Luis Reque, the CIDH Executive Secretary during his
stay in Santiago, last October.
In this regard, and in reply to the questionnaire contained in Your
Excellency's note, I am pleased to send the following to provide that
information:
1. Complete texts of the decree-laws
and other acts promulgated by the Government Junta, which affect, or might
affect, human rights.
In this connection, the texts of the main decree laws that may be related
in any way to the point proposed are enclosed. These are decree laws Nos. 1, 3,
4, 5, 6, 12, 18, 23, 25, 27, 50, 76, 77, 78, 81, 98, 105, 111, 112, 128, 130,
133 and 139.
Also enclosed are the military “edicts” issued up to September 26,
1973, as they appear in the edition of “El Mercurio” of that day; many of
them deal with matters relating to human rights.
2. General guarantees on human
rights. Are all or any of the general guarantees on human rights referred to
in the preceding paragraph still suspended? Is the right to take an appeal of
“habeas corpus” to independent regular courts suspended? Are civilians
brought—or can they be brought—to trial before military courts in some cases
or in general? For how long—at a maximum—can a person be deprived of his
liberty without being brought before a regular court? Is it mandatory for every
person brought to trial to have defense counsel and for the guarantees of “due
process” to be applied in handling his case?
To begin with, it must be said that the decree laws mentioned in the
preceding paragraph are in full effect, except for Article 2 of Decree Law Nº 5
which was replaced by Decree Law Nº 105, of October 22, 1973, published on
November 20 of that year.
As a preamble to the replies that follow, we must briefly explain what is
meant under our laws by “state of siege” and “state of emergency.”
According to Article 72.17 of the Political Constitution, by declaration
of a state of siege there is “conceded to the President of the Republic only
the authority to transfer persons from one department to another and to confine
them in their own houses, or in places other than jails, or intended for the
confinement or imprisonment of ordinary criminals.”
Law Nº 12.927, of August 6, 1958, on state security, contains the
following provisions on a state of emergency:
Art. 33. When a state of emergency is declared, the respective zone shall
be under the responsibility of the National Defense Chief designated by the
Government, who shall assume military command, with the authorities and duties
set forth in this law. For the exercise of his functions, in the various zones
in which the state of emergency prevails, he may delegate his authority to any
officers of the three branches of National Defense, who may be under his
jurisdiction.
Administrative authorities will continue to perform their duties and to
carry out their regular work.
Art. 34. The military commander shall be especially responsible for:
a. Assuming command of army, naval,
air and police forces and others that are present, or that may arrive in, the
emergency zone.
b. Taking steps to keep the
existence or construction of military facilities secret.
c. Prohibiting the publication of
military news, by establishing whatever press, telegraph, and radiograph
censorship he deems necessary.
d. Repressing anti-patriotic
propaganda, published by the press, radio, motion pictures, theaters, or any
other means.
e. Regulating the transport, use and
possession of arms and explosives by the civilian population.
f. Controlling entry into, and
exit from, the emergency zone and traffic in it and subjecting persons
considered dangerous to surveillance by the authorities.
g. Making use of locations and means
of mobilization belonging to government, semi-government, and autonomous
institutions, and state, municipal, and private companies, as necessary, and for
the time required.
The authorities must make a detailed inventory of items requisitioned. A
copy of the inventory must be turned over immediately, or within 48 hours, to
the owner or to whoever is in possession of the item at the time of requisition.
The “use” referred to in sub-paragraph 1 of this Article shall give
the owner the right to request appropriate compensation when the item is
returned to him. If the parties disagree on the amount of compensation, it will
be speedily and summarily determined by the judge competent to render decisions
on large claims in civil matters. This action must take place within one year
from the date the competent authority orders restitution of the item.
h. Order total or partial evacuation
of districts, towns or zones, as considered necessary for the defense of the
civilian population and for the success of military operations within his
jurisdiction.
i. Take steps for the
protection of works of art and public utilities, such as potable water, light,
gas, mining and industrial centers and others, in order to avoid or counter
sabotage; establish special surveillance over armaments, forts, war materiel,
installations and factories, and prevent the publication of true or false news
that may produce panic in the civilian population or demoralization in the armed
forces.
j. Issue orders required for
requisition, storage and distribution of all articles needed for assistance to
the civilian population or for military use.
k. Control entry to, and exit from,
the emergency zone of food, fuel, and war materiel.
l. Provide for declaration of
militarily useful supplies available in the zone.
m. Publish edicts regulating services
under his responsibility and the rules that civilian population must adhere to,
and
n. Give any orders or instructions
necessary for maintaining internal order within the zone.
Art. 35. When a state of emergency has been declared, and the commanding
officer has been appointed, if operations must be undertaken against a foreign
enemy or against organized rebel forces acting in support of foreign aggression,
wartime Military Courts must be constituted immediately, as established in
Section III, Book 1 of the Code of Military Justice.
Art. 36. The authority referred to in this section is understood to be
without prejudice to the authority that other laws, particularly military laws,
grant the President of the Republic to provide for national defense in the event
of war, attack, or foreign invasion.
To complete what has been said in this Preamble, we must note that Decree
Law Nº 5, of September 12, 1973, published September 22 of that year, in
interpretation of Art. 418 of the Code of Military Justice, declared that the
state of siege decreed because of internal disturbance, in the circumstances
prevailing in the country, must be understood as “a state or time of war”
for the purposes of the application of wartime penalties established in the Code
of Military Justice and other penal laws, and in general, for all other purposes
of such legislation.
Our replies to the question in Section 2 of the questionnaire are as
follows:
a. Regarding the right of “habeas
corpus”, we must make the following distinction:
1. This right is fully enforced for
crimes subject to ordinary jurisdiction. We note that in the act establishing
the Government Junta, contained in Decree Law Nº 1 of September 11, 1973,
published September 18 of that year, the Junta declared in Article 3 that, “in
the exercise of its mission, it will guarantee the full effectiveness of the
judiciary.”
2. With regard to crimes subject to
military jurisdiction, the remedy of “habeas corpus” is not applicable, as a
consequence of the country's being in a state of siege, which, under Decree Law
Nº 5, is equivalent to a “state or time of war.”
In fact, according to the provisions of Article 74 of the Code of
Military Justice, military courts in time of war are under the commanding
general of the particular territory, and the Supreme Court and regular courts do
not have jurisdiction over them.
3. The remedy of amparo from
decisions of the President of the Republic, issued in the exercise of the
special powers granted to him by the Political Constitution in Article 72, Nº
17, is not in order either when a state of siege has been declared.
Regular courts may not judge in this exceptional situation, the political
or de facto bases the governing authority has used to order a restrictive
measure that is authorized and duly issued.
This has been the invariable decision of the Supreme Court, reaffirmed by
the decision of the First Court of Appeals of Santiago, dated September 14,
1973, which denied the writ of relief filed by ex-Deputy Bernardo Leighton
Guzman, on behalf a number of
attorneys who had been arrested, among them ex-Ministers Carlos Briones,
Clodomiro Almeyda and Jorge Tapia.
The Court held:
That by Decree Law Nº 1, dated yesterday, the military Government Junta
declared a siege of siege throughout the national territory, which permits the
imprisonment of persons in places other than jails or intended for the detention
or imprisonment of common criminals.
Consequently, the fact that persons on whose behalf a writ of amparo
has been filed are detained in a regiment—as indicated in sub-paragraph 1, the
military Government Junta has made use of power granted it under Article 72 of
the Code of Military Justice, in relation to Nº 17 of Article 72 of the State
Political Constitution.
And according to the provisions of Art. 206 of the Code of Penal
Procedure, a remedy of amparo filed by telephone on behalf of the persons
mentioned in sub-paragraph 1 is denied.
File if not appealed. Nº 516-73. (A photocopy of the decision cited is
attached.)
Expanding on the subject, note may be taken of the decision of the
Supreme Court, dated November 13, 1973, under which the high court denied a
complaint appeal filed against the War Council of Valparaiso, declaring itself
incompetent to hear appeals against decisions of military courts, since,
inasmuch as the country was in a state of war, such remedies were the
responsibility of the commanding general of the particular territory, who had
all-embracing authority to implement, revoke or modify his sentences. (Art. 74
of the Code of Military Justice.) The ordinary Superior Court, which is the
Supreme Court, cannot exercise jurisdiction over the military command function
that is exclusively the authority of the commanding general in a territory
declared in a state of war. (A copy of this decision is attached to this
communication.)
His Excellency
Chairman of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights
Washington, D.C.
b. Civilians may be subject to
military jurisdiction. Aside from the fact that this derives from the general
rules on military jurisdiction in time of war, this has been expressly declared
in Decree Law Nº 5 of September 12 of the same year, which, in Art. 4e,
modifying Article 26 of Law Nº 12.927, on state security, establishes: “in
time of war, in any event, crimes stipulated in Articles 4, 5 bis, 6, 11 and 12
of this law shall be of the competence of wartime military tribunals.” (The
article cited referred to crimes against the internal security of the state,
against public order, and against normalcy of national activities. Article 5 was
appended to Law 12.927 by Article 4a of Decree Law Nº 5, and provides as
follows:
“Those who commit attacks against the life and physical integrity of
persons, for the purpose of disturbing internal security or intimidating the
population, or who proceed to confine or detain such persons in a manner covered
by the terms of Article 141 of the Penal Code, for these same purposes, shall be
sentenced to a major imprisonment term of any of the degrees of severity
provided by law.
In time of war, the penalty shall range from a major imprisonment term of
medium duration to a death sentence.
If the victim of the crime is killed or suffers severe damage to his
person, the maximum penalty shall be applied, and if the maximum is the death
penalty, that is the penalty that shall be applied.”
We should add that Decree Law Nº 13, of September 17, 1973, published
September 20 of that same year, declared that the meaning and scope of Article
73 of the Code of Military Justice “is to confer on wartime military courts
jurisdiction over military legal proceedings initiated in a territory declared
in a state of assembly or of siege subsequent to the appointment of the
Commanding General. Cases that began in peacetime shall be subject to the
cognizance and jurisdiction of peacetime military courts, pursuant to peacetime
procedures, until their definitive termination.”
c. While a state of siege is in
effect, there is no time limit for detention without being brought to trial
before a court of ordinary justice.
d. Both those brought to trial
before courts of ordinary justice and before military courts must have a defense
attorney and their case must conform to “due process”.
Thus, Article 197 of the Code of Military Justice establishes:
“Art. 197. Where the defendant does not have defense counsel to contest
the indictment, or where the defense counsel designated for him does not duly
carry out his functions or is remiss in meeting legal requirements, the attorney
on duty, or if none is available, an attorney designated by the Government,
shall serve as defense counsel.”
3. Mass Communications Media.
Is there a system of censorship, suspension or closure affecting the press,
radio and television, or any other media? Are radio stations subject to a policy
ensuring free expression of thought? Is it possible to shut down any of these
media or cancel their licenses, without recourse to independent courts of
equity? Has any system of censorship or control on the sale or circulation of
books or printed matter been established for ideological reasons?
The goals sought by the Government Junta (see, among others, Decree Laws
Nos. 1 and 77) require constant vigilance, which has resulted in a certain
degree of control over all types of information media. Those that were
recognized Marxist propagandists or that did not follow instructions given by
the Supreme Government (see Edicts Nos. 12 and 15) were closed down.
The Junta is desirous of gradually diminishing these controls as the
circumstances of national activities permit. At the present time, all press
organs are distributed without prior censorship and a number of radio stations
have been authorized to issue their own information bulletins independently,
subject to the general standards of responsibility for abuses of publicity.
4. Status of individual deprived
of their freedoms. Are persons deprived of their freedom for political
reasons or for reasons of public security, subject to the same living conditions
and discipline as those detained, indicted, or sentenced for common crimes? Are
the two kinds of detainees confined in the same establishments? Are those
detained for political reasons or for reasons of public security permitted to
receive visits from members of their family? How frequently? Are they permitted
to receive reading material? Are they permitted to communicate with defense
counsel? Without the presence of officials who can overhear their conversations?
Have special provisions been adopted to guarantee correct treatment for women
deprived of liberty for political reasons or reasons of public security? Have
steps been taken to avoid abuse or maltreatment of prisoners? Do prisoners have
medical service available to them? Have provisions been made, in the event of
the death of persons detained for political reasons or for reasons of public
security, to have an autopsy performed in the presence of one or more physicians
designated by the family?
In this regard, it must be noted that no one is detained in Chile for
political ideas, but only for the commission or the alleged commission of common
crimes. In any event, those persons who have been detained for common crimes in
connection with their political activity up to September 11 (illegal possession
of arms, economic crimes, etc.), and those who have been detained for reasons of
public security, are provided living conditions and subject to a discipline
different from that applied to common criminals.
In general, they are confined in various establishments and locations,
such as stadiums, public buildings, the detainees' own homes, or geographically
isolated places.
For reasons of space, however, some of these prisoners are confined in
places of common detention, but they are housed in different sections and are
entirely separated from common criminals.
These prisoners are permitted to receive family visits and in particular
cases, visits from notary publics, when some action of their competence must be
taken. Only prisoners who are incommunicado do not have the right to have
visits.
Prisoners receive visits from their families approximately every 15 days.
They may also receive reading material. They are permitted to communicate with
their defense counsel, without the presence of officials listening to their
conversations.
Moreover, it should be reported that special provisions have been adopted
to guarantee correct treatment of women deprived of liberty and that compliance
with these directives is periodically checked by visits made to places of
detention by various authorities. Strict rules have also been imposed to prevent
prisoners from being mistreated, and compliance with these orders is checked
periodically.
Prisoners receive complete medical attention, and also assistance from
the Red Cross and social workers. The Minister of the Interior has authorized
the Chilean Red Cross to act as intermediary between prisoners banished to some
point in the country and their families, when the latter wishes to send them
letters or clothing or bedding.
In the conviction that this note fully replies to the requests for
information from the Commission over which Your Excellency presides, I take this
opportunity to renew assurances of my highest consideration.
Ismael Huerta Diaz
Vice-Admiral
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
6.
It should be noted that at the 31st session held in Cali,
Colombia, in October, 1973, the Commission unanimously agreed, immediately after
deciding to send notes to the Government of Chile on the 24th and 25th
of that month, “to authorize the Chairman… to request the Government of
Chile's consent for the Commission to visit that country, in order to make an
on-the-spot investigation of the facts, if it were considered desirable in
accordance with the developments regarding the status of human rights and the
replies that the Chilean Government might give to the above-mentioned requests
for information.” (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.31, doc.54, rev. 1, p.15).
7.
At its 32nd session, held in Washington, D.C., in Apri, 1974, the
Commission requested, based on the report prepared by a special sub-committee
composed of Dr. Dunshee de Abranches and Dr. Don Gabino Fraga, additional
information from the Government of Chile on a certain number of individual
cases.
The Subcommittee's report states the following: CLASSIFICATION
OF COMMUNICATIONS ON CHILE
Denunciations on specific cases and the general situation. The report of
the subcommittee composed of Drs. Fraga and Abranches.
1.
Case 1774: The documents received by the CIDH and submitted by the
Secretariat to the subcommission are compiled in five volumes, designated as files
A, B, C, D, and E, each of them containing a card indicating their contents.
2.
In file D, the sub-commission examined 22 numbered folders,
ascertaining that numbers 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 were missing, and that there
were two numbers 3 and 22. The communications relating to the Government Junta
of Chile in these folders may be summarized as follows:
Nº 1. Denounces violation of right of asylum, “mass arrests, summary
execution.”
Nº 2. Same denunciation as Nº 1.
Nº 3. Denounces Junta's goal to “exterminate Marxism.”
Nº 3. Denounces violation of right of asylum.
Nº 4. Denounces “brutal repression.”
Nº 5. Denounces “assassination of President Allende” and “attack
on the self-determination of the Chilean people.”
Nº 6. Denounces genocide and political persecution.
Nº 7. Denounces violation of right of asylum.
Nº 8. Denounces “violation of principle of self-determination.”
Nº 9. Denounces “killing, torture and repression of political
prisoners.”
Nº 10. Denounces “atrocities, bombing of civilian population, mass
execution, 20,000 deaths.”
Nº 11. Denounces repression of the people and indiscriminate killings.
Nº 12. Declarations
Nº 15. Denounces “torture, killings.”
Nº 19. Denounces “repression, tortures, killings.”
Nº 20. Denounces tortures and executions.
Nº 21. Denounces persecution against political refugees and requests
intervention to obtain asylum for their families, Brazilian refugees.
Nº 22. Denounces arbitrary arrest of Luis Corvalán, Pedro Enríquez and
Jaime Barrios and “brutality” against Theotonio dos Santos, Vamia Baubirra,
Juan Lechin, Emma de Jones, Hugo González Moscosa, Gustavo Beghaut and María
Esther Gilio.
Nº 23. Denounces “torture, mistreatment of prisoners, detention
without charge or trial.”
Nº 24. Requests that the CIDH send an observer “to current and pending
trials.”
3.
In file C there is a second folder number 22, containing a
statement on the legal situation in Chile and a circular letter on the situation
in that country, both favorable to the Government Junta.
4.
File B contains a request for information on the status of the
following persons: Luis Corvalán, already mentioned in folder Nº 22, Solange
Bastos da Silva, Mariano Rodríguez, Manuel Messias da Silva
and Arthur Yader Acuna. In notes of December 14, 1973, the Government of
Chile reported that these persons had left the country, except for Luis Corvalán,
who was in detention and would be brought to trial.
5.
File A contains the first requests for information and notes to
the Government of Chile, the report of the Commission's Executive Secretary on
his mission to that country (Doc. 31-31 res.) and the documents that he received
from the Government.
6.
The report of the Executive Secretary contains denunciations received on
October 12-17, 1973, concerning specific notable cases that have been classified
in the groups indicated below:
a.
Denunciations of the disappearance of 16
persons during the events occurring September 11, 1973, and
thereafter, whose names and other data are contained in the report.
b.
Denunciations of the alleged death by execution and/or torture, on
the occasion of the same events, of 12 persons, whose names and other data are
also contained in the report.
c.
Denunciations of torture of six detained persons, whose names and
other data are contained in the report.
d.
Denunciations of arbitrary arrest of nine persons, whose names,
place and date of arrest and other data are contained in the report.
7.
In a note of March 27, 1974, the Government of Chile supplied information
on the denunciations listed in the Executive Secretary's report, in accordance
with our request of October 24, 1973. The Government note contains, among
others, the following information: a.
Persons who have disappeared or whose whereabouts are unknown: -
Tulio Quintiliano Cardozo -
Gonzalo Vergel b.
Persons on whom no information is available: -
Jorge Sergio Alegría Higuera -
Luis Eleuterio Maldonado Gallardo -
Miguel Hernán Moreno Caviedes -
Sergio Emilio Aguilar Núñez -
Alvaro Javier Acuna -
Miguel Zaldívar Arriagado -
Carlos René León Morales -
José Oscar Machuca Espinosa -
Manuel Vásquez -
Soledad Urzúa Pérez c.
Deceased persons: -
Charles Horman -
Jorge Ríos Dalens -
Sócrates Ponce Pacheco -
Litré Quiroga -
Víctor Jara d.
Persons detained or in asylum: -
María Emilia Tijoux, arrested and arraigned by the Court of Appeals of
Santiago. -
Isabel del Carmen Flores Garrido and Carmen Flores Morador, in asylum. e.
The other persons mentioned in the Commission's request for information
are apparently free or outside the country
8.
File E contains a number of publications and copies of documents
that may be of interest in the study of the general status of human rights in
Chile.
9.
In addition to case 1774, the Commission listed, for information purposes
and to give an overall view of the communications received with respect to the
present Government of Chile, the following denunciations, whose handling the
Commission is examining: -
Case 1786 – Arbitrary arrest of Lucy Lortsch, incommunicado.
- Case
1790 – Disappearance of Enrique Paris Roa.
Case 1799 – Detention and persecution of “siloistas” (“an
apolitical group advocating peace.”) -
Case 1803 – Arbitrary arrest of Nelsa Gadea.
-
Case 1807 – Communication on the general status of human rights
in Chile, supplemented by documents and an oral statement to the Commission, on
specific cases of individual violation, some of them contemplated in Case 1774.
10.
In conclusion, the subcommission recommends that the following
denunciations now making up Case 1774 be handled as specific cases of alleged
individual violations:
I.
File Nº 5 – Denounces “assassination of President Allende.”
(Article I of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man).
II.
File Nº 22 (Annexes) – Denounces persecution and arbitrary arrest of
Luis Corvalán and others (detention and arraignment have been confirmed by
information from the Government.) (Articles I and XXV of the Declaration).
III.
Report of the Executive Secretary – Report on the homicide of
Charles Horman, Jorge Ríos Dalens, Sócrates Ponce Pacheco, Litre Quiroga and Víctor
Jara (death has been confirmed by the Government of Chile). (Article I of the
Declaration).
IV.
Report of the Executive Secretary – Statement on the arbitrary
arrest of María Emilia Tijoux and other persons. (The Government confirmed only
the arrest of the person named) but this should not exclude the possibility of
investigating other arrests denounced (Article I of the Declaration).
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |