Yurich v. Chile
Relatives as Victims | Admissibility
The Committee noted that the original acts of arrest, detention or abduction, as well as the refusal to give information about the deprivation of freedom occurred before the entry into force of the Covenant and Optional Protocol for the state party. Accordingly, the Committee considers that even if the Chilean courts regard enforced disappearance as a continuing offence, the communication is inadmissible under ratione temporis basis.
November 2, 2005
Articles not violated / not dealt with
Article 5 [ICCPR], Article 6(1) [ICCPR], Article 6(3) [ICCPR], Article 7 [ICCPR], Article 9(1) [ICCPR], Article 9(4) [ICCPR], Article 10(1) [ICCPR], Article 10(2) [ICCPR], Article 12(4) [ICCPR], Article 13 [ICCPR], Article 14(1) [ICCPR], Article 14(3) [ICCPR], Article 14(5)[ICCPR], Article 16 [ICCPR], Article 17(1) [ICCPR], Article 17(2) [ICCPR], Article 18(1) [ICCPR], Article 26 [ICCPR]
Facts of the Case
Ms. Jacqueline Drouilly Yurich and her husband were arrested on 30 October 1974 and 31 October 1974 respectively. Both were members of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria. The victim’s mother claimed that on the day of arrest, eight individuals, armed and dressed in plain clothes, who identified themselves verbally as agents of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) required information about the victim’s place of residence. Witness evidence showed that both were detained at the DINA detention centre and were subjected to torture. An eyewitness claimed that Ms. Yurich and her husband were taken out of their cells by DINA agents one night in late December 1974 and they were never seen again.