Court Ruling in Santiago Orders Compensation for Torture Victim from 1983 Chilean Dictatorship

Original article: Torturas en dictadura no prescriben: fallo en Santiago ordena indemnización a víctima detenida en Valdivia en 1983

A recent ruling by the Seventeenth Civil Court of Santiago highlights that crimes committed in Chile during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet are not subject to prescription. The court ordered the state to compensate J.S.B., a university student who was detained and tortured in Valdivia in 1983, with 10,000,000 pesos (approximately $12,000).

Judge Rocío Pérez Gamboa outright rejected the defenses against prescription and claims of prior administrative reparations argued by the state agency.

The ruling clearly states that the events in question constitute a crime against humanity, which renders them imprescriptible not only in criminal law but also in civil law concerning economic reparations.

The judgment notes that with the government defenses dismissed, and the existence of the crime established with a causal link to the claimed damages, it is time to evaluate the extent of the harm to determine appropriate compensation.

Tortured During the Dictatorship

According to the ruling, J.S.B. was 25 years old in 1983 and lived with the father of her two children, aged 2 and 3, in Valdivia, at her mother’s house. At that time, she was pursuing a degree in pedagogy, focusing on history, geography, and civic education at the Universidad Austral de Chile.

On September 11 of that year, a protest occurred involving students and local residents, which was violently suppressed by Carabineros (Chilean police). In front of her home, a young man of approximately 19 years was arrested and brutally assaulted in view of the neighbors, prompting J.S.B. to intervene in an attempt to prevent the violence, pleading with the officers, who eventually transported the apparently unconscious detainee away.

In response to the mounting outrage, the neighbors decided to draft a letter of complaint to the local newspaper, written at the student’s home using her typewriter. This letter was subsequently sent to the media outlet.

Following this, on September 12, a neighbor warned her that civilian individuals, presumably members of the CNI (the political police), were inquiring about the residents, advising that they should not stay overnight. Taking the advice to heart, J.S.B. chose to hide with her family at a friend’s house, returning home the next day when there were no signs of trouble.

However, at 6 a.m. on September 13, her home was violently raided by armed police and civilian personnel. After searching the premises, the father of her children was apprehended and taken away along with others in a mass operation in the area.

Hours later, J.S.B. went to the center of Valdivia seeking assistance but was detained by civilians who forced her to the central police station. There, she was kept incommunicado, subjected to threats, insults, and witnessed mistreatment and physical pressure against other detainees, including explicit threats against her young children.

By around 8 p.m., both she and the father of her children were transferred to the local prison, remaining in isolation in punishment cells for a week while continuously suffering harassment and abuse from prison staff. They later learned that the real reason for their detention was their authorship of the letter against police abuses.

Ultimately, after a month of imprisonment, both were released due to legal interventions.

J.S.B. stated that as a direct consequence of her experiences, one of her children developed symptoms of claustrophobia and anxiety, while she herself suffered severe psychological effects, including insomnia, fear of arbitrary detentions, and detrimental effects on her personal and family life, disrupting her academic and work journey due to the oppressive environment she experienced.

She also reported being under police surveillance after her release, facing additional detentions and required to sign monthly at the prosecutor’s office for three years, measures that exacerbated her psychological and social distress. These circumstances strained her relationship with the father of her children, leading to their separation and her subsequent emigration from the country for over twenty years, during which she attempted to rebuild her life despite the enduring impact of the trauma.

The court ruling is grounded in evidence presented by the victim, as well as “public facts, such as the general detentions proven by pieces of the newspaper and the known violence used during that era to repress social and collective protests.”

While the tribunal noted that a psychological report from the comprehensive health and human rights repair program of the Metropolitan Central Health Service could not be considered an official expert opinion due to procedural deficiencies, it acknowledged its utility as a basis for a “judicial presumption.”

The ruling concluded that the damages and their extent could be firmly established, warranting the compensatory action requested by the plaintiff, Mrs. Sellan Bodin.

Personal Damage-Focused Reparation

The judgment states that while the complaint and accompanying evidence describe the situation of her children’s father and their experiences, the action is personal, confined to J.S.B.’s sufferings.

To determine the indemnity of 10 million pesos, Judge Pérez Gamboa considered the torture and resulting sequelae experienced by J.S.B.

“Acknowledging the limitations of a monetary indemnification for the traumatic events endured by the plaintiff, which can only aim to alleviate the deeply personal effects and aftermath of such experiences, considering the severity of the acts, the duration of deprivation of liberty, and the extent of the harm likely leading to post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the immediate physical pain reasonably presumed to have been suffered by the plaintiff, alongside the state of internal vulnerability causing ongoing socialization difficulties for her, as well as similar amounts awarded in comparable cases, leads this court to prudently set the compensation at 10,000,000 pesos,” the judgment ordered.

View the First Instance Ruling