Laureani Maturana and Krassnoff Marchenko (Sandoval Rodríguez) (Supreme Court)

Key Judgment

Legal Relevance

Keywords: Deprivation of Liberty | Punishment | Amnesties | Statute of Limitations

Themes: Characteristics of the Crime

The Court found that the victim's apprehension could not be classed as "illegal detention" due to the fact that a detention by authorities can only occur within proper public function and justified by proper motives. There was no evidence that the victim was arrested or deprived of his liberty due to a crime he had committed or that he had been taken before any court for prosecution. In the absence of proof of the victim's death, the Court found that the crime was still ongoing. Highlighting how a statute of limitations can only start once the crime has ended, the Court held that the time relevant for the calculation of the statute of limitations could only begin to be counted once the victim was found, or from the date of his confirmed death. The statute of limitations therefore could not be applied to the present case. The continuing nature of the crime was also relevant to the Court's consideration of whether an amnesty law could apply. Finally, the Court also noted that the victim had been apprehended during an internal "state of war" and recalled that Chile, by signing the Geneva Conventions of 1949, had obligations in relation to the security of persons taking part in the conflict, especially those detained, and to avoid impunity for the violation of their rights.