Final Verdict of the $hilean Anarchist Bombs Case: ALL CHARGES DROPPED

June 3rd, 2012

WCCC [Toronto] Translated – Solidaridadporlxspresxs

On Friday, June 1st, 2012 at 11 AM the verdict of the remaining 6 co-accused of the notorious $hilean Anarchist “Bombs Case” was being read in court. The room was full of media, high ranking Attorney General Officials, comrades, family and friends of approximately 80 people. After more than 6 months of the longest trial in the conquering history of Chile, the Judges deliberated the following:

  1. The Attack against the ANI (National Intelligence Agency), on January 18th, 2006: There was an explosive artifact placed at the ANI, but was later transferred to another location one block away where it was detonated. The damages of the explosion could not be considered since the charges presented by the Prosecutor only specify the ANI and not another location.
  2. The Attack against the CDE (Defense State Council), on December 21st, 2006: An alleged explosive artifact was placed at the CDE, but did not detonate and was later dismantled. However, no definitive proof of the contents of the device was ever found, regarding black/gun powder. Thus, the Court decided that definitive proof was lacking to point out this incident since it did not include any forensic evidence to point out that the content was indeed black gun powder.
  3. The Attack against the ATAL Automotive Dealership, on March 27th, 2007: There was an explosive artifact that detonated causing damages.
  4. The Attack against Chilectrica (La Cisterna), on October 6th, 2007: There was a TNT explosive artifact, causing large structural damages in the premises as in others. Only the damages to Chilectrica were considered and not on others, since they were not considered within the charges laid.
  5. Gendarmerie School, on May 22nd, 2009: It was stated that Mauricio Morales rode a bicycle to the premises, physically activating the explosive which then detonated, causing his death and damages in the area.
  6. Church of Sacramentinos, on November 21st, 2009: There was an explosive artifact that was placed and then detonated at the entrance of the Church.
  7. Conducts of Financing an Illicit Terrorist Association: No definitive proof of financial support due to incoherencies between the accusation and the stay of proceedings i.e. is it possible to financially support an illicit terrorist association that does not exist? Moreover on the other hand, the Court determined that there was no “illicit” act being committed since the accusations arose from a non-existent undercover officer that had allegedly filtered emails asking for financing. Therefore the “financing” does not exist.


The Attack against the ANI was deemed only as slight damages against a street sweeper; the Attack against Chilectrica, the ATAL Dealership and the Gendarmerie School constituted as “Damaged,” the last being that which Mauricio Morales detonated the artifact. The Church of Sacramentinos, was determined as arson. The application of the Antiterrorist Law was revoked, since it did not infringe terror on the population.


The Collaborator, Gustavo Fuentes Aliaga: His statement was made illegally and was not in the presence of a defense council. Moreover, on January 12th, 2012, Eduardo Witt Sanchez (Captain of Chilean National Police) recognized that his statement was carried out by Prosecutor, Jacir Manerola. His statement was thereby dismissed since it was not done in the presence of a defense council. The final verdict stated “unto all the arguments presented, there is no choice but to dismiss the extrajudicial testimony of the accused, Gustavo Fuentes.” ABSOLVED, but continues in custody due to a previous charge of stabbing his ex-partner.

Francisco Solar Dominguez: Accused according to the testimony of the collaborator. The final verdict read, “The innumerable documentation presented does not allow us to link the accused with the events he is accused of. Thereby as stated by the defense, the accused indeed professionally works with the materials that were related to the evidence.” The possession of explosive artifacts and the existence of a “manometer” were dismissed. ABSOLVED

Monica Caballero Sepulveda: Incongruence exists in the alleged possession of a document that elaborates a “criminal plan of association.” Having the initial association stayed in court, the accusation had no ground.  “There is no definitive proof that the document was found in the room that she lived in (…) Neither is there definitive proof that the room had been exclusively used by her, despite the existence of said document, despite her name appearing within the contents of the notebook,” the verdict stated. Also stated was that the alleged natural gas containers found in the house and the alleged “antireligious” emblems could not constitute as any concluding evidence. Moreover, the police operative could not prove where such evidence was found. ABSOLVED

Felipe Guerra Guajardo: The verdict stated, “that the participation attributed to the accused was in no way conclusive, as they were simply investigative speculations, thereby the accused should be discharged and absolved of any involvement or presence at the time of Mauricio Morales Duarte’s death.” ABSOLVED

Omar Hermosilla Marin and Carlos Rivera Luttgue:  “The evidence submitted on the participation of events is notoriously impertinent and exaggerated. There is insufficient evidence to link the accused with the events. ABSOLVED

Finally, all of the accused were ABSOLVED and the crimes were thereby deemed as Damages and Arson. They also stated that the Squat Houses were spaces in which cultural and political events took place as well as libraries, which is insufficient in the categorization of “centrepieces” of terrorism.

Once the final verdict was read, those present hugged, applauded and insulted the press, the collaborator and the group of Prosecutors/Incriminators whom had to leave through the back door after receiving mounds of insults and even a pillow.

Shouts against Interior Minister Hinzpeter, the Antiterrorist Law and ex-Prosecutor Peña were made exuberant in the Court room, after which there was a banner drop and flying pamphlets outside the Court House to mark the end of the Bombs case.

Omar Hermosilla had stated: “I hope people fight any conviction and that the intelligence apparatus leave us alone. There is nothing wrong here, only those of a sick mind like that of Prosecutor Alejandro Peña.”

“This was a set up, it was very clear today. The Magistrates stated it and there is no proof of any of the accusations made by the Prosecution. I am at peace. This bad time is over. The months deprived of freedom, of having been tortured during that instance,” stated Felipe Guerra. “The Prosecution are the only terrorists here, harvesting terror in raids and detentions.”

The President of the Prosecutor’s Association, Pedro Orthusteguy, tried o water the situation down by not criticizing the persecuting structure of the judicial system, the Antiterrorist Law, and the inquisition meant by these political trials by saying that this was a particular case that “greatly discredited” the Public Ministry. He pointed the finger to Prosecutor Peña, “who made the decisions that lead to this lamentable verdict. We as the Association of Prosecutors will not demonize Prosecutor Peña, but evidently has to step aside for professional etiquette. He must leave his current position, if not voluntarily then the President will have to make the decision that he must leave. That is our opinion.”

A few minutes after the absolving sentence was given, the Interior Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter, spoke from the Presidential Palace and stated that “the verdict does not end nor deliberates the efforts made in seeking the Courts to clarify who are responsible for the bombs that have been placed in the country.”

On Thursday, August 2nd, 2012 the same sentence will be read at noon at the Centre of (In)Justice, where the complete details of how the verdict came about through an incredibly thick report. Then the Prosecution will have until August 12th to appeal the decision at an Appeals or Supreme Court on the “Bombs Case.” Even if the prosecution appeals, we greatly appreciate the gestures of solidarity and love with which the situation has been forwarded, supporting the accused.

We will not forget the memory of Miriam Tamayo, mother of one of the Stayed accused, who died on November 8, 2011 from Cancer during the long months of anguish.

We also not forget our comrade Gabriela Curilem, who has gone underground due to this case, accused of terrorist financing; strong greetings and strength to her in her invisible path.

This sentence marks a precedent in favour of all those comrades charged and imprisoned by the atrocious Antiterrorist Law. This is not about believing or not in “justice,” but in understanding that the attacks carried out by the Prosecution do not lead to convictions or invoke sentences to the Antiterrorist Law. That the fantasies of the powerful could not lead to the expected sentences, despite all the repercussions of repression, they could not fulfill their intent.


Distributed by: The Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu [Toronto]


The Non-Homogeneity and Emergence of Anti-Capitalist Positions in the [Chilean] Student Movement

Second Round of Student Mobilizations! Take Position!                                

A new process of student mobilizations seems to be taking place throughout the country. Once again the streets of all of $hile are full of potential that is characteristic of the masses that dare to dream and disobey. There have been ongoing announcements of the government that have had the main objective to “save what is not broken” and propose “technical” solutions. But what else can we ask from those who try to protect the status quo at all costs?

Once again we have dared to break the mechanic routine and with it, we sometimes enter into unchartered territory. Many are the questions we ask ourselves that come up when we try to transgress reality. Perhaps the first question that should be answered is in relation to the nature of the student movement. Many times, those of us who participate in such movement let ourselves be carried by the inertia of the masses, leaders, of what is said in assemblies (in various faculties, schools, and colleges); or we simply let ourselves be carried by the CONFECH (Federation of Students) or some other representative mega organization. Sometimes we forget what is often called a “student movement” is not a uniform mass, but is constituted by small groups very different from each other, which unite to the heat of the revolt and demand.

Diversity is present within the student movement, even if many deny its existence. For example the mass media and the State have depicted an extremely simplistic version where there are only two factions within the movement: the “moderate” and the “ultra.”

What is true is that there many positions between this bivariate relationship imposed by the mentality of official structural discourse. However since this imaginary line has been implanted with relative success within the population (including within the very student movement) we will analyse it to decipher the motives for its implantation.

The “moderates” basically consist of the major institutionalized players within the movement, such as the Communist Party through its Communist Youth, or other such groups, including that which is lead by Giorgio Jackson and the current President of the FEUC (Catholic University Federation of Students) Noam Titelman.  When the movement overcomes legality and institutionalism, the mass media visibilizes these sectors official representatives as the State validates their existence, since it is the group which is easiest to communicate with and impose “negotiation tables” that least vulnerate legality and the structural system.

Even if seemingly paradoxical, the State effectively empowers these leaders unto the incapacity to understand and pacify the different radicalized expressions of the movement. On its part, the media will give the appearance that the “student leaders” and the “State” are at odds, while carrying out a delegitimizing campaign against all forms of protest that do not fit under the institutionalism of these leaders.

It is interesting to note that figures such as Camila Vallejos have almost transformed themselves into a fetish for the national and international media, whom is referred to as an “example” of leadership. Of course, there seems to be plenty of interest in empowering leaders than the actual movement. It is always easier to deal with ringleaders, instead of dealing with the collective conformed by representatives of every faction and variant of a diverse and confrontational social movement. It is in the interest of the media and the State to have a uniform movement, to domesticate, empower charismatic leaders that are separate from real collective action; in this way, they can give the appearance that they dialog with “leaders” of the movement, while at the same time repress street mobilizations, the occupation of establishments or any expression from the movement that makes them uncomfortable.

On the other hand, there are the “ultras,” those who basically do not conform part of the moderate side of the movement. The press and the government talk about the “ultras” as a uniform group, disciplined and militant that creates an obstacle for negotiations and capitalist routine. Once again we see the State and the press try to uniform the revolt through their choice of language, since what they consider “Ultra” is in no way uniform or unitary.

What does a university leader that pretends to channelize their political actions through the CONFECH (Federation of Students), with a young high school student that channelizes their everyday actions through a school occupation?  What does a young university student that seeks various methods of social protest have to do with the comrades who wish to protest through civil disobedience? What does a student bureaucrat representative who only seeks re-election in the next university vote have to do with the masked youth on the street that channelizes their political action through direct action? What we can see here is that the issue at hand is not as simplistic as depicted and the alleged uniformity of the “ultra” does not exist.

We see within what is widely known as the “ultra” there exists profound differences in the way of understanding the notion of “education,” the forms of protest and the society that sought to be constructed. One the one hand, there are those who wish to extend State rights in the education process, assigning a positive note to the mechanism of domestication and indoctrination that constitutes the school and university system.  Furthermore, there are those who seek “free education,” not because they consider that the massification of so-called “formal education” constitutes as an intrinsic right to the individual, but seek to create “equality” in access to a “commodity for consumption,” which is the current state of education; all of this under the infallible truth that we live in a country with huge inequality, or otherwise considering that access to mass “free” or “State” education it is merely a step towards development. On the other hand there are those that consider neither private nor State owned education could constitute as a common good for the individual, since this creates subordination to bosses, cultures of uniformity, competition, imaginative suppression, hierarchy and the destruction of the collective. This last group proposes “self-education,” the construction of autonomous education spaces, “popular education,” and any instance of generating knowledge outside of institutional education imposed by the scholarized society. What should be noted is that within these three trends within the student there exists thousands of intermediate experiences that pick up various elements from each position, and are the original product of every context that they are carried out.

Beyond the differenced that we find in understanding the concept of “education,” there are also profound differences in how the concept of protest, occupation and other aspects of social struggle is understood.  There are those who believe in direct action and the transgression of legality as something crucial to generate advances in the movement, while others advocate for completely peaceful marches that do not go beyond the discourse of the “model citizen” regarding law and order. Similarly regarding student occupations, there are those who believe they are mere mechanisms of pressure to achieve practical ends in the demands of the movement, while there are others see them not only as mechanisms of pressure to the authorities but as liberated spaces where new dynamics of education can be achieved in self/popular education. This can relate to any action that seeks to not only demand better education from the State, but also construct a different kind of education in practice, from below and with individuals. We could go on about the various standpoints within the movement.

Past these differences that we can visualize, what we seek is to demonstrate that the “movement” is not a homogeneous structure, but contains an immense diversity of positions. This diversity is manifested in the infinite collectives, groups and individuals that support from various points of view, places and rhythms. Therefore, we can see that the movement does not have a centre, no leader, no rigid structure, but are multiple visions converged into marches, events, workshops, assemblies or street riots. However, after these events each collective goes back to their own territory, their own occupations, universities, affinity groups, common spaces, organizations or collectives.

We know that the State and the press are mistaken to name the “Ultra” as something homogeneous. Diversity will be concealed by the State and the media since they do not understand this decentralized logic of political action, and also because it is easier to deal with a hierarchical, disciplined movement instead of diverse groups attacking back in various ways, rhythms and places. It is easier to give negotiation power and action to leaders instead of dealing with a movement that not only questions “market education,” but domination and hierarchy at all levels; the existence of leaders and the dominated, the existence of the State and the exploited .  Of course this diversity is not much use if it is not able to coordinate itself to bring about change.

In the end, we see there exist profound differences in the so-called “student movement” and it is urgent that we do not ignore them and begin to establish a discussion regarding the type of emancipation that we want as a collective. It is important to attack “market education,” but it is also important to question ourselves and to make conclusions on what could facilitate the revolt. Of course, these instances do not include “unification” or “uniformity” from the movement, rather an efficient non-authoritarian coordination, without leaving behind our differences and our diversity. The “student movement” still does not have true “positions” unto this reality, but rather seemed like a potent force of rejection to the reality that is imposed on us daily. The construction of a greater questioning and a strengthening of criticism are fundamentally needed, as is the circulation of ideas within all the spaces where the movement has developed. It is necessary to begin discussing these issues, even if it takes time and some energy. These ideas cannot be left aside; if we only go this far the movement will disappear, or it will turn into a functional organism to the system.

To imagine, discuss and break the normality of Capital!

Distributed by: The Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu [Toronto]

Negra Conciencia

Chilean 14 Bomb Case: Ministry of the Interior and State Prosecution Loose Challenge

Chilean 14 Bomb Case: Ministry of the Interior and State Prosecution Loose Challenge

Published May 16th, 2012

The Court did not accept the challenge presented against the Judges of the Public hearing, moreover were made to pay the legal fees and a fine on such an action. Minister Hinzpeter’s witness testimony forthcoming.

The Court of Appeals of Santiago unanimously rejected the challenge presented by the Attorney General’s office of Santiago South and the Minister of the Interior against the three Judges involved in the Bombs Case for alleged impartiality.

The Court resolved that the decisions made by the three magistrates was not biased, regarding certain evidence and expert’s reports that were tossed out of court and cut back five months of trial, contrary to the challenge made by the Interior Minister and the Secretary of State.

Both institutions tried to disqualify the three Judges, Marcela Sandoval, Carlos Carillo and Blanca Rojas, as they rejected some of the evidence that was made on behalf of the prosecution; the evidence was referring to alleged traces of TNT found in the knapsacks of one of the accused, Omar Hermosilla.

They judges that carried out the trial of the Bombs Case stated that this evidence did not correspond to the charges that Hermosilla had been processed for (Placement of an explosive artifact and criminal financing under the Antiterrorist Law), but corresponded to the charge of Illicit Terrorist Association for which he had been discharged.

In this resolution, the Court also pointed out that this was not the time to challenge the Magistrate since the prosecution and the Minister of the Interior can nullify the trial when it is over, if there is speculation of partiality on behalf of the Judges.

In this way, the Court sentenced the prosecution and the Ministry to pay the costs of the challenge’s proceedings, since there was no motive to present it in this way and paralyze a trial that was already underway for the last 5 months. A fine set out by the Court would also have to be paid by the Prosecution and the Ministry of the Interior.

Testimony of Minister Hinzpeter forthcoming

Defense attorney Rodrigo Roman of the Popular Defense Committee, representing Omar Hermosilla, reiterated that the challenge had been a maneuver by both institutions to detain the trial and stop the witness testimony of Interior Minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter in the trial.

The declaration of the Minister is precisely contemplated as soon as the trial resumes on Tuesday afternoon. The testimony has been solicited by the Defense of the accused, also having called the ex-Chief Attorney General of Santiago South, Alejandro Peña, to the stand as a witness.

The Interior Minister’s attorney, Ximena Risco, stated that she will not resort to the Supreme Court to insist on the disqualification of the Magistrate involved in the Bombs Case.

Taken from hommodolars

Distributed by the Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free a Wallmapu [Toronto]

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑