Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"El Juez y el General"
August 23, 2008 marked my second day in Santiago, Chile. That morning I was scheduled to meet my boss Sebastian from Human Rights Watch. A soul radiating with a type of warmth inherent to most activists, Sebastian treated me to tea at a café that, oddly enough, was named “Sebastian’s”. He also invited me to attend a movie premier that night for “El Juez y el General”, a new documentary on Augusto Pinochet, the nation’s former military dictator who was responsible for the deaths of over 3,200 Chileans.
Sebastian and I met later that night in the basement of the Centro Cultural Palacio La Moneda. We arrived early to assure that we would have seats, which was fortunate because I was able to meet both Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio Lanfranco, the directors of the film. I shadowed Sebastian through the growing crowd of people who stood outside the theater’s doors and was introduced to a good number of surviving victims and family members of victims who suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime between 1973 and 1990.
An unshaven man wearing glasses approached me to ask what I was doing at the premier, assuming that I was a journalist. I answered and then asked him the same curt question in return. “Patricio invited me because I was tortured!” he exclaimed proudly. Then he pointed to the profound scars that ran up from his hands and under his sleeves, indicating through gestures that they wrapped around his body like a prehensile serpent.
The atmosphere was enthralling. I came to learn that politically several audience members had supported Salvador Allende, Pinochet’s socialist predecessor who was overthrown and murdered during the September 11, 1973 coup d’état. The same was not true, though, for one of the audience members in attendance. Interestingly, that person was Judge Juan Guzmán, the film’s main protagonist and the first judge to prosecute Pinochet after the dictator’s return to Chile following over a year of house arrest in London.
Initially Guzmán supported Pinochet’s military takeover, as he thought Pinochet would be able to resolve the Manichaean conflict between the Chilean military and the Communist revolutionaries who posed an ostensible threat to national security. The film follows the investigatory processes that Guzmán undertook in deciding whether or not to prosecute Pinochet for violations against humanity. It was a journey that forced Guzmán to question both his family’s conservative leanings and the military’s reasons for pursuing a politics of extermination.
As a documentary that portrays the famous judge under a less deifying light, the film provides a humanizing lens through which Guzmán boldly acknowledges the mistakes of his past. During the course of his research, Guzmán discovered documents that he had written during his earlier years as a lawyer that denied habeus corpus, the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action, to victims of Chilean human rights atrocities. At one point, Guzmán even admits that he too would most likely have taken innocent lives if he had been ordered to do so by the military.
Simultaneously, the film captures Guzmán’s exemplary qualities as a judge who rigorously systematized efforts to acquire testimonies, initiated Chile’s commitment to international human rights law, and responded officially to all public matters as a chief liaison between Chileans and the law.
Two central stories provided the fodder for Juan Guzmán’s eventual decision to strip Pinochet of his self-declared immunity from war crimes allegations and to charge him with the continued kidnapping and disappearance of political dissidents. One investigation involved the killing of Manuel Donoso, whom the military claimed had perished in a car accident. Upon examining Donoso’s interred remains, however, Guzmán and a team of forensic scientists determined that Donoso has been shot through the head with a bullet.
The second investigation involved Cecilia Castro, a disappeared law student whose mother, Edita, was forced by the military to divulge Cecilia’s location in order to safeguard the life of her grandchild, Cecilia’s daughter. After learning that the disappeared were often tied to rails and left to drown in the ocean, Guzmán organized a diving expedition into the Pacific where he encountered conclusive evidence that innocent people, and possibly Cecilia, were tied to rails that dragged them to the depths of the sea.
Emotionally, the captivating and visceral stories provoked strong reactions from the predominately Chilean audience. Inside the densely packed theater, viewers could be overheard sniffling and sobbing in response to the real life tragedies projected before them on the movie screen.
Claims that Pinochet was psychologically demented and too weak to undergo judicial processes protected him from having to face the consequences of his actions until 2004. It was not until then that Guzmán, who had strangely begun to sympathize with the former dictator who was the same age as Guzmán’s mother, saw a Miami-based interview where Pinochet articulated his responses with clear capacity and deliberation. Unconvinced that Pinochet was mentally ill, Guzmán initiated the legal process that resulted in the revocation of Pinochet’s dementia status at the Court of Appeals. That opened the door for a renewed series of trials and the presentation of evidence supporting the allegations of Pinochet’s crimes. Ultimately, Pinchot was charged with kidnapping, torture, and murder but died on December 10, 2006 before ever being convicted.
Another important aspect the film touches upon is the continued rift in Chilean society between pro and anti-Pinochet factions. The film begins and ends with Guzmán watching a scene of pro-Pinochet protestors who have taken to the streets. The demonstrators never justify the actions of Pinochet or the military but simply emphasize the fact that Pinochet was never convicted. According to Guzmán, such people are ignorant and have not learned anything from their country’s tragic history.
Judging by the question and answer session that followed the screening, a satisfactory response to one question still eludes Chileans: “Why was Pinochet never convicted?” The question was asked to Guzmán twice in succession, and he responded by elaborating on the intricate legal details and how the courts delayed trying Pinochet on several occasions due to his age and the presumably fragile state of his health. Guzmán also articulated numerous complexities within the Chilean court system that slowed the legal process.
“There were three kinds of judges in Chilean courts,” Guzmán stated. “First there were the collaborators, who worked with and benefited from the military regime. Second were the ambitious judges who carried out proper legal investigations and committed themselves to holding violators of the law accountable for their actions. Third were the judges with no character. This type of judge was concerned only with the thoughts of the majority and failed to support the rights of minorities who merit legal representation. In my opinion, this judge is the most dangerous kind of all.”
In a continuing legal process where over 600 military government agents having been indicted and over 30 convicted and imprisoned for their crimes, it seems that Guzmán has sparked a process that will help Chile to overcome years of repressive rule and arbitrary state-sponsored slaughter. “El Juez y el General” seals Guzmán’s courageous commitment to his nation and human rights, as well as his type of character as a judge. Ambitious, to say the least.
Sebastian and I met later that night in the basement of the Centro Cultural Palacio La Moneda. We arrived early to assure that we would have seats, which was fortunate because I was able to meet both Elizabeth Farnsworth and Patricio Lanfranco, the directors of the film. I shadowed Sebastian through the growing crowd of people who stood outside the theater’s doors and was introduced to a good number of surviving victims and family members of victims who suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime between 1973 and 1990.
An unshaven man wearing glasses approached me to ask what I was doing at the premier, assuming that I was a journalist. I answered and then asked him the same curt question in return. “Patricio invited me because I was tortured!” he exclaimed proudly. Then he pointed to the profound scars that ran up from his hands and under his sleeves, indicating through gestures that they wrapped around his body like a prehensile serpent.
The atmosphere was enthralling. I came to learn that politically several audience members had supported Salvador Allende, Pinochet’s socialist predecessor who was overthrown and murdered during the September 11, 1973 coup d’état. The same was not true, though, for one of the audience members in attendance. Interestingly, that person was Judge Juan Guzmán, the film’s main protagonist and the first judge to prosecute Pinochet after the dictator’s return to Chile following over a year of house arrest in London.
Initially Guzmán supported Pinochet’s military takeover, as he thought Pinochet would be able to resolve the Manichaean conflict between the Chilean military and the Communist revolutionaries who posed an ostensible threat to national security. The film follows the investigatory processes that Guzmán undertook in deciding whether or not to prosecute Pinochet for violations against humanity. It was a journey that forced Guzmán to question both his family’s conservative leanings and the military’s reasons for pursuing a politics of extermination.
As a documentary that portrays the famous judge under a less deifying light, the film provides a humanizing lens through which Guzmán boldly acknowledges the mistakes of his past. During the course of his research, Guzmán discovered documents that he had written during his earlier years as a lawyer that denied habeus corpus, the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action, to victims of Chilean human rights atrocities. At one point, Guzmán even admits that he too would most likely have taken innocent lives if he had been ordered to do so by the military.
Simultaneously, the film captures Guzmán’s exemplary qualities as a judge who rigorously systematized efforts to acquire testimonies, initiated Chile’s commitment to international human rights law, and responded officially to all public matters as a chief liaison between Chileans and the law.
Two central stories provided the fodder for Juan Guzmán’s eventual decision to strip Pinochet of his self-declared immunity from war crimes allegations and to charge him with the continued kidnapping and disappearance of political dissidents. One investigation involved the killing of Manuel Donoso, whom the military claimed had perished in a car accident. Upon examining Donoso’s interred remains, however, Guzmán and a team of forensic scientists determined that Donoso has been shot through the head with a bullet.
The second investigation involved Cecilia Castro, a disappeared law student whose mother, Edita, was forced by the military to divulge Cecilia’s location in order to safeguard the life of her grandchild, Cecilia’s daughter. After learning that the disappeared were often tied to rails and left to drown in the ocean, Guzmán organized a diving expedition into the Pacific where he encountered conclusive evidence that innocent people, and possibly Cecilia, were tied to rails that dragged them to the depths of the sea.
Emotionally, the captivating and visceral stories provoked strong reactions from the predominately Chilean audience. Inside the densely packed theater, viewers could be overheard sniffling and sobbing in response to the real life tragedies projected before them on the movie screen.
Claims that Pinochet was psychologically demented and too weak to undergo judicial processes protected him from having to face the consequences of his actions until 2004. It was not until then that Guzmán, who had strangely begun to sympathize with the former dictator who was the same age as Guzmán’s mother, saw a Miami-based interview where Pinochet articulated his responses with clear capacity and deliberation. Unconvinced that Pinochet was mentally ill, Guzmán initiated the legal process that resulted in the revocation of Pinochet’s dementia status at the Court of Appeals. That opened the door for a renewed series of trials and the presentation of evidence supporting the allegations of Pinochet’s crimes. Ultimately, Pinchot was charged with kidnapping, torture, and murder but died on December 10, 2006 before ever being convicted.
Another important aspect the film touches upon is the continued rift in Chilean society between pro and anti-Pinochet factions. The film begins and ends with Guzmán watching a scene of pro-Pinochet protestors who have taken to the streets. The demonstrators never justify the actions of Pinochet or the military but simply emphasize the fact that Pinochet was never convicted. According to Guzmán, such people are ignorant and have not learned anything from their country’s tragic history.
Judging by the question and answer session that followed the screening, a satisfactory response to one question still eludes Chileans: “Why was Pinochet never convicted?” The question was asked to Guzmán twice in succession, and he responded by elaborating on the intricate legal details and how the courts delayed trying Pinochet on several occasions due to his age and the presumably fragile state of his health. Guzmán also articulated numerous complexities within the Chilean court system that slowed the legal process.
“There were three kinds of judges in Chilean courts,” Guzmán stated. “First there were the collaborators, who worked with and benefited from the military regime. Second were the ambitious judges who carried out proper legal investigations and committed themselves to holding violators of the law accountable for their actions. Third were the judges with no character. This type of judge was concerned only with the thoughts of the majority and failed to support the rights of minorities who merit legal representation. In my opinion, this judge is the most dangerous kind of all.”
In a continuing legal process where over 600 military government agents having been indicted and over 30 convicted and imprisoned for their crimes, it seems that Guzmán has sparked a process that will help Chile to overcome years of repressive rule and arbitrary state-sponsored slaughter. “El Juez y el General” seals Guzmán’s courageous commitment to his nation and human rights, as well as his type of character as a judge. Ambitious, to say the least.
Labels: Chile, Guzman, Pinochet
# posted by Michael Solis @ 8/26/2008 12:49:00 AM 
