The Government fully welcomed the decision of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to dismiss the accusation against President Sebastián Piñera and not to investigate human rights violations that occurred during the social outbreak.
The Foreign Ministry issued an official statement stating that the decision “fundamentally rules out the existence of antecedents on situations that may be considered crimes over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction.” Meanwhile, senior officials of La Moneda spoke out on the matter, such as the spokesman Jaime Bellolio, who said that “with this the thesis of the radical left is discarded, which meant that here there were systematic violations (of human rights)”, and the Undersecretary of the Interior, Juan Francisco Galli, who maintained that what the ICC pointed out is that “in Chile no crimes occurred, there was no State policy dedicated to committing crimes against citizens, neither by police institutions nor by part of the State of Chile “.
But the version emanating from the Government does not conform to reality, warn the lawyers who brought the complaint to The Hague. “The Government cannot claim victory, on the contrary, and Sebastián Piñera should be very concerned, because there are indications that both in Chile and abroad, he and all those responsible can be tried,” he explained to The counter the lawyer Ricardo Ignacio Bachmann Fuentes, doctor in Law and professor at the Pablo de Olavide University of Seville, who coordinates the group of professionals.
The arguments to dismantle La Moneda’s optimism are at least three: first, because the ICC did establish that there were human rights crimes associated with the social outbreak, he maintains; second, because the investigation was not opened for now, and is waiting for the processes to be resolved ad hoc in the Chilean justice system, such as the one carried out by the prosecutor Claudia Perivancich; and third, because the same group of professionals will continue to insist before the indicated international court to rule on the merits of this issue.
“In the first place, the ICC Prosecutor’s Office recognizes the temporal, territorial and personal jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with the Rome Statute. In turn, it considers the commission of various crimes established in article 7 of the aforementioned Statute as proven by agents of the State of Chile. Likewise, it considers the requirements of systematicity and generalized attack against the civilian population as accredited ”, the professional states at the outset.
“Both principles are difficult to prove, but (the prosecutor) recognizes it. It expressly rules out that they have been isolated cases, says that there is an organized attack, “he clarifies to The counter.
Regarding the principle of complementarity, Bachmann clarifies that “the prosecutor has considered –in the exercise of his discretionary powers– that it is pertinent to wait for the evolution of the actions brought before the Chilean justice system. In any case, he indicates, he will continue to receive information on the same events. “
Regarding that the process can be resumed, the lawyer points out that “it can be assumed that it is not a final or conclusive decision, but rather it is communicated that it has been considered appropriate to wait for the progress of the actions brought before national courts.”
Regarding the steps to be followed, the professional states that together with a team of jurists of different nationalities, who make up the prosecution team, “they will continue to send information that justifies an immediate intervention by the ICC, in order to avoid impunity of the atrocious crimes committed as of October 18, 2019, which are the responsibility of the current Government ”.
Bachmann adds that they are already working on a brief to refute the prosecutor’s decision. “As an organization we are going to continue fighting, because we consider that the prosecutor’s decision does not make any sense, because he says that I am not going to open an investigation at the moment and I am available to receive more information. Legally it does not settle anything, it is not determinative, it is not conclusive. We are going to explain to the prosecutor that the justice that takes time is not justice. And this matter, or it is resolved as the INDH said, or there will be impunity, and they cannot lend themselves to that, “he concluded.
