By Juan Subercaseaux A

The national and international human rights community was taken off guard last week when we learned that a Summer Bench of the Santiago Court of Appeals admitted the petition from defense lawyers of Oscar Aitken that called for the Riggs Bank case to be eliminated from the caseload of Judge Carlos Cerda, on the grounds that the judge had allegedly offered an opinion on the case. The defense signals an article in El Mercurio (February 25, 2006, page C 19) in which the judge states that former Pinochet financial administrator Oscar Aitken collaborated in the crime of malfeasance in office, commenting on a letter rogatory sent to Cayman Island officials.

The El Mercurio article does not include the phrase offer an opinion. Specifically, Judge Cerda was quoted as follows: The information requested from the Cayman Islands may be important to help establish the crime of malfeasance in office by Augusto Pinochet, with direct collaboration from Oscar Aitken, and possibly other individuals as well. Thus, Cerda stated that the information he sought from the Cayman Island officials (by way of Great Britain) may be important which also implies that possibly it might not.

The statement shows that Judge Cerda was careful not to prejudge Oscar Aitken¹s involvement in a crime of malfeasance of public funds, despite suspicions one may have regarding an individual who has been charged on the basis of probable cause of participation in tax crimes amounting to more than 1000 million pesos. That Judge Cerda is conducting a thorough investigation into Pinochet investments in the Cayman Islands should be applauded, not obstructed. In fact, the world knows the Cayman Islands are a financial paradise where dictators and traffickers in drugs and weapons launder their ill-gained money. Peruvian officials have been exemplary in gaining restitution of more than US$100 million the Fujimori governmen deposited in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Lastly, three elements are especially serious:

1) That the Appellate Court Summer First Bench, in full session held in February, month of judicial recess, in which everyone is distracted by vacation and the Viña del Mar Music Festival, voted two to one (that of Judge Gloria Chevesich) to admit consideration of the petition to recuse Judge Cerda. In accepting this dilatory and groundless petition, the court decision brings the Riggs Case to a temporary halt.

2) That Judge Cerda is being questioned shortly before his likely nomination to the Supreme Court, after having been proposed for that post by the Supreme Court itself and the President of Chile, due to his well known merits as judge.

3) That the ultra Pinochet supporter, Judge Alfredo Pfeiffer who is next in line of seniority may eventually replace Judge Cerda in the Riggs Case. This would result in impunity for Pinochet in the Riggs Case and, by domino effect, in all the other cases in which he has been charged. Pfeiffer has been an open advocate of rejecting all judicial actions against Pinochet as well as removal of immunity, including the Riggs Case, as opposed to the majority of judges of the Santiago Court of Appeals, on account of an alleged ³dementia² that has been shown to be absolutely false.

Be on the alert Chile! Be on the alert Humanity!

For these reasons and because the Santiago Appeals Court Summer First Bench will rule shortly on the legal merits of the recusation of Judge Cerda, we call upon the human rights movement of Chile and the world to energetically oppose this action, which indirectly, slyly, and surprisingly intends to secure impunity for Pinochet and his cohorts.

Back to top

Return to Human Rights Today