Chile Court Expands Visitation Rights for 200 Convicted Human Rights Violators, Ignoring Gendarmería’s Privilege Warning

Original article: Gendarmería advirtió posible privilegio, pero Corte amplía excepción de visitas a 200 condenados por violaciones a los DD.HH. en dictadura

Despite warnings from Chile’s Gendarmería about potential privileges, the Santiago Court of Appeals has decided to expand visitation exceptions for 200 convicted individuals for crimes and human rights violations committed during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

On September 16, the appellate court ruled that the agency must ease visitation restrictions for 93 individuals convicted of crimes against humanity held at Colina I prison, adding to a previous decision from February that had already benefited 107 other inmates from the same facility. With these rulings, the 200 elderly inmates in the so-called ‘Assistance Pavilion’ are excluded from the standard limit of ten designated visitors, although the cap of five visitors per day and all security measures remain in place.

The court acknowledged that the norm invoked by the institution was legally established but concluded that its application to these inmates was arbitrary due to not considering their «special physical and psychological vulnerability,» as reported by Bio Bío Chile.

The dispute originated in October 2025 when Gendarmería notified inmates that they must submit new lists limited to ten people, under Exempt Resolution No. 6,622 from December 2020, which regulates visitation and packages in the country’s prisons. Article three of this norm allows the facility head to authorize a higher number in exceptional and duly qualified situations.

The defense for the convicted argued that the visitation limit forced them to “choose between children, siblings, grandchildren, nephews, in-laws, friends, and former comrades-in-arms.” Gendarmería defended the legality of the measure in court, arguing it is a general rule meant to maintain order and security in facilities, and warned that exempting this group due to age or health status could create «a privilege over the rest of the penal population,» as stated by the cited media.

Benefits for Convicted Individuals in High-Profile Dictatorship Cases

The initial appeal was filed by attorney Ricardo Bravo Cornejo on behalf of 107 inmates, with the Court accepting the action on February 20, 2026. Subsequently, another 93 convicted individuals from the same pavilion appealed against the measure, receiving a favorable ruling on September 16. In both rulings, the court established that the age of the appellants justifies differentiated treatment and that contact with family and friends helps preserve their mental health.

Among the beneficiaries are those convicted for emblematic human rights violations during the dictatorship: Pedro Enrique Fernández Dittus, an officer who led the military patrol involved in the Quemados Case; Juan Renán Jara Quintana, convicted as a co-author of the kidnappings and murders of Víctor Jara and Littré Quiroga; Eduardo Alejandro Oyarce Riquelme, a former DINA agent and member of the Lautaro Brigade; Pedro del Carmen Parra Utreras, convicted for the Laja-San Rosendo Massacre; and Egon Antonio Barra Barra and Juan Alejandro Jorquera Abarzúa. All of them are serving sentences in Colina I and are former members of various branches of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement.

Is it a Prison Privilege?

According to attorney Bravo, the exception granted by the Court does not represent an unjustified benefit or privilege, but rather a «justified difference in treatment.»

The jurist noted that inmates aged between 65 and 92 years are part of a «distinct and vulnerable group,» both physically and psychologically, especially after prolonged incarceration.

Human rights attorney Magdalena Garcés suggested that providing differentiated prison conditions for elderly individuals or those with terminal illnesses should be applied based on general criteria and not exclusively for inmates convicted of human rights violations.

«What could be considered a prison privilege is if only inmates convicted of serious human rights violations have access to these measures,» she noted.

«As attorneys representing victims, we do not oppose that those convicted of serious human rights violations or crimes against humanity receive differentiated treatment regarding health, food, etc.; we do oppose early releases.» she stated to Bio Bío Chile.

On the other hand, attorney Francisco Bustos, part of the Caucoto firm, argued that easing visitation rules should not be a problem, provided that the same criteria is applied to all elderly incarcerated individuals in similar circumstances.

Bio Bío Chile reported that they reached out to Gendarmería for a statement, but the institution did not respond. However, according to the media, the agency is analyzing the latest ruling and evaluating what actions to take, as the sentence can be appealed to the Supreme Court.