April 10, 2013 | By Ernesto Alvarado
CC image courtesy of United Nations Photo.
An arson attack on a home in Chile’s southern Araucanía region, allegedly carried out by members of the Mapuche tribe, has led to the reimplementation of a tough anti-terrorism law. After meeting with his cabinet ministers following the attack, which took the lives of the homeowners, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera stated that the anti-terrorism law is the country’s best option to combat the attacks of the indigenous population on local landowners. The aim of the law is to impose harsh penalties on domestic terrorists, but leaders of the Mapuche tribe claim that the government is using the law to target their population in a discriminatory fashion.
The tension between the Mapuche and the Chilean government has continued to rise over the dispossession of land by state officials to expand the forestry industry, hydroelectric dams, and other corporations. The Mapuche tribe bases its claim to the territory on ancestral connections to the land. The Piñera administration has refused to expropriate land to the indigenous population, and some members of the tribe have resorted to targeting forestry companies through arson attacks, land occupations, seizures of timber stands, and roadblocks. In response to these tactics, the Chilean government imposed heavy punishments on the Mapuche population pursuant to the anti-terrorism law.
Law 18.314 was enacted in 1984 by the Pinochet regime to suppress domestic acts of terrorism and violent acts of armed political groups. The law defines illegal land occupation and attacks on equipment or personnel of multinational corporations as acts of terrorism that can be adjudicated in civilian and military trials. It also allows the state to rely on unidentified prosecution witnesses and indefinite detention for suspected terrorists, along with the power to tap telephones and intercept correspondence such as e-mails and other communications. The anti-terrorism law has been invoked on numerous occasions as a result of arsons in southern Chile, including incidents in 2002 and 2010.
The use of the anti-terrorism law has faced scrutiny for a number of reasons by the Mapuche tribe and international human rights groups, such as Minority Rights Group International and Human Rights Watch. The due process rights of Mapuche detainees have been threatened by the measures allowed under the anti-terrorism law. Pre-trial detention is typically longer for a suspect under the anti-terrorism law than those charged with other crimes in Chile, and sometimes spans up until the beginning of trial. By allowing courts to hold Mapuche suspects in custody until trial under Law 18.314, Chile is violating Article 9, Section 3 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In Giménez v. Argentina, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) noted that holding a defendant in indefinite or prolonged pre-trial detention is a severe measure that should only be employed as punishment to those convicted of a crime or to repeat offenders.
The ability to use unidentified witnesses by the prosecution is a violation of Article 14(3)(e) of the ICCPR which guarantees the right of defendants to confront witnesses. Under the anti-terrorism law, the prosecution is allowed to maintain the identity of its witnesses secret. The police tactics used in implementing the anti-terrorism law gave rise to many claims against the police force, but because the military tribunals maintain jurisdiction over all cases dealing with on-duty incidents, the Mapuche argue they have little chance of recovering damages. The IACHR has also rejected military tribunals as a way of trying civilians in its 1998 Annual Report to. The use of military tribunals in these cases is a violation of the Fair Trial Guarantees of Article 14 that Chile adhered to in its ratification of the ICCPR. Chile is also acting contrary to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ determination in Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile that military jurisdiction over civilian cases was inadequate to provide the basic right to a fair trial.
The Mapuche have continued to be inhibited by the Chilean state’s lack of recognition for their ancestral lands. As Mapuche and other indigenous communities take increasingly desperate measures to reclaim or maintain control over their territory, the Chilean government has continued to use the anti-terrorism law as a way to quell social movements in the Araucanía region. While the law aims to crack down on violence against landowners in the region, Chile’s implementation of its anti-terrorism law has led to multiple violations of due process and human rights abuses against the Mapuche people. The Chilean government must address these issues if it plans to reach a successful agreement over the territorial disputes.
Source: The Human Rights Brief