Interview with José Zalaquett, professor of Human Rights
at Universidad de Chile

What justice has been achieved since Pinochet stepped down as Commander in Chief of the Army in 1998? José Zalaquett served as a member of the National Truth Commission in 1998. In his view, the Chilean justice system has made significant progress in learning the truth about those years and prosecuting the atrocities committed by the dictatorship, but the pace of progress has been tempered by legal, medical and political obstacles as well as Chile's strict adherence to legal procedures. How did efforts to prosecute Pinochet start?
The first attempts to prosecute Pinochet for human rights violations took place while he was still army chief. Pinochet stepped down in March 1998 to become senator for life. But in January of that year, Gladys Marín *a longtime Chilean Communist Party leader and former presidential candidate who died two years ago] had filed a criminal complaint [against him]. By the time Pinochet was sworn in as senator for life in October, a dozen similar complaints had been filed.

On October 16, 1998, Interpol arrested Pinochet in London on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge. How did the arrest influence the situation in Chile?
It lasted almost a year and a half and by the time Pinochet returned to Chile he was dead politically and the dozen criminal complaints had grown to more than 140. Most were filed by the victims, their families and human rights lawyers. But others originated within the Chilean judiciary as judges and prosecutors came across incriminating evidence that called for new investigations. After Pinochet's return, these criminal complaints were merged into a class action and turned over to an appellate judge, Juan Guzmán. As a High Court judge, Guzmán had the legal authority to strip Pinochet´s immunity and he did so in a historic ruling in 2000. But then he ordered a medical examination to determine if Pinochet was fit to stand trial. The Chilean doctors reached the same conclusion as the British doctors and ruled that Pinochet had a mild mental impairment. Based on this finding, the Supreme Court, rather cynically I believe, ruled that Pinochet´s human rights would be violated if he were to stand trial. Technically, I can't argue with the ruling. If it were anyone else but Pinochet, I think 97 out of 100 human rights lawyers would applaud the decision. But this was Pinochet and the Supreme Court was not known to be such a staunch advocate of human rights, to put it mildly.

But that decision was eventually overturned...
Yes, because he granted [in November 2003] a long interview to a television station in Miami where he demonstrated a degree of coherence that exceeded the description in the previous medical finding. But our legal system is slow, establishing legal responsibility is not so easy, and the man was good at covering his tracks.

What impact did the discovery of Pinochet's secret bank accounts at Riggs Bank in July 2006 have?
It had a devastating effect on Pinochet because it deprived him of his last supporters, those who saw him as a great warrior. Great warriors don't loot. They don't steal their enemies' wrist watches.

To what extent have these incomplete proceedings changed anything in the way Chile deals with its past?
In the process of bringing human rights cases to trial, Chilean justice has moved forward and slowed to a halt, then moved forward again, but it has never gone backwards. Unlike Argentina or Uruguay, Chile did not adopt amnesty laws or pardons or limit the prosecution of these cases under democratic regimes. Pinochet´s intelligence chief, Manuel Contreras, was convicted and members of the military, including generals, were tried and convicted. There are about 50 members of the military who are currently serving or have served sentences. Unlike Argentina, there is almost no disagreement on the extent of what happened. The number of murders reported in the right-wing newspapers and those reported by human rights organizations vary by about 5 per cent. We are talking about 3,500, including 1,400 or so cases of persons who have disappeared. Two years after the 1998 Truth Commission another truth commission was formed to investigate the treatment of political prisoners under the military regime. It established that 27,000 victims were illegally imprisoned and that torture was commonplace. The relatives of the murdered victims have received a financial compensation from the State, as well as those who were exiled and those who lost their civil service jobs for political reasons. The truth has emerged. The armed forces have recognized it, as have all the political parties. But in Chile we are extremely legalistic. Pinochet has never been legally convicted of a crime, although he has been morally condemned.

What is the status of the amnesty law signed by Pinochet in 1978 to protect himself and his troops?
That law does not cover any crimes committed since it was passed. The first cases filed revolved around events that didn't fall under the amnesty law. The disappeared were a greater challenge to the courts because they could not establish a time of death and thus could not rule that the amnesty law applied. Many cases remained in a legal limbo for years for this reason. In the last few years more judges have started ruling that based on international treaties, many of these disappearances are crimes against humanity and therefore immunity laws do not apply. The Supreme Court ruled that international treaties have a higher standing than any law, but fall under the authority of the Chilean Constitution. That ruling is now being invoked against the 1978 amnesty law.

What should be done to bring more human rights violators from the Pinochet regime to justice?
I've always believed that crimes against humanity should be punished. But in the cases of those who obeyed orders and in so doing committed crimes - I am not saying the worst crimes, but serious crimes nonetheless - I believe that in the interest of knowing the whole truth and breaking the code of silence that still reigns in the military, there could be some leniency in sentencing in lieu of a full confession. We must not forget than many of the victims and perpetrators are dying of old age and expediency is a factor. I believe this approach would lead to more truth, more sentences, and an overall sense that more justice is being rendered.