University of Minnesota

Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, Doc. 17 (1985).






1. The right to residence and movement is closely linked to the right to personal liberty, of which it may even be considered a manifestation. As recognized by Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men [1] and the most important international instruments on the subject, [2] the right to residence and movement entails the exercise of the following faculties: (a) to freely leave any country, including one’s own country; (b) not to be expelled from the territory of the state of which one is a national or deprived of the right to enter it; (c) to choose residence in the country of which one is a national; and (d) to move freely within it.

2. In Chile the three last-mentioned manifestations of this right have been affected in the past twelve years. The possibility of freely leaving the country has been respected by the Government, which has even adopted administrative measures aimed at facilitating the exit from the country of those who voluntarily wish to do so.

3. On the other hand, the right to move freely throughout the territory of Chile has been limited by forced relocations, which, since they are also a restriction of personal liberty, were the subject of special consideration in the pertinent chapter.

4. In Chile the greatest limitation on the right to residence and movement is connected with what it has been agreed to call “the right to live in the homeland” which has been massively disregarded through administrative expulsions and prohibitions of entry into the country of thousands of Chileans.

5. In the view of the Commission, the right to live in one’s homeland derives from the social character of the individual, which can be developed only in society and from the finding that this character has been historically expressed in the development of nations as natural communities and in their juridical constitution as States. It therefore follows that the possibility of entry and residence can only be restricted in respect of a person who is not juridically linked to the State through the bond of nationality. The State is not obliged to accept the entry of any alien but it cannot deny it to its nationals. If there is a right that, in principle, is absolute, it is the right to live in one’s homeland, so embodied in the human psyche that legal writers call it an “attribute of personality”.

6. From older civilizations to the most modern European and Latin American constitutions, exile has been considered an extremely severe penalty, and that is natural if it is recalled that the right to live in one’s homeland is not an abstract right, derived from cold logical deduction, but rather emerges from a profound need of peoples.

7. Since the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights were approved in 1948 and implemented through the Pact of San Jos6 de Costa Rica, and through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively, the nation-states as a whole have proclaimed this right of residence which they have undertaken to respect.

8. It may be affirmed that the right to live in the homeland has been definitively incorporated into the philosophical, juridical and moral heritage of humanity and may therefore be considered one of the “natural rights prior to the State”; consequently “the State must recognize and regulate its exercise but since it is not the State that confers it, it can never deny it”. [3]

9. Furthermore, there is a clear trend towards eliminating from penal laws the penalties of exile and banning that a judge may impose because they are considered to be vestiges of antiquated legal systems.

10. On the basis of the considerations set forth, this chapter will be limited to an analysis of the validity in Chile of the right to live in the homeland and for that purpose an examination will be made of the legal framework, the procedures that characterize the practice of the Government in this matter, the effects of exile, and the present situation in that regard.


11. Article 10 (15) of the 1925 Constitution stipulated among the individual guarantees of Chileans the unrestricted right to leave and enter the national territory freely. Up to September 1973 the President had never been empowered to expel a Chilean or to prohibit his entry into the country either during a state of siege or a state of war, emergency or alert.

12. In the past 12 years, however, decree laws that have involved a serious disregard of this right have been enacted.

13. Less than two months after the Government Junta took office, on November 6, 1973, Decree Law 81 was published in the Official Gazette. It made the right to live in Chile subject to the discretion of the administrative authority. Article 2 of this Decree Law empowers the President to order the expulsion from, or abandonment of, the country, of persons, whether aliens or nationals, and Article 3 adds that persons expelled, those who are under a sentence of forced relocation and those that abandon the territory without complying with the established rules, and exiles may not reenter it without the authorization of the Ministry of the Interior. Therefore, a decree prohibiting entry is unnecessary: the objective fact of having left the country in one of those circumstances is sufficient to transform a person into an exile who does not know when he may return to his country.

14. On August 10, 1974, Decree Law No. 604 was published in the Official Gazette. It empowers the Government to prohibit the entry into the country of Chileans or aliens who are in one of the situations described-carrying out acts contrary to the interests of Chile, disseminating specified doctrines or constituting, in the opinion of the government, a danger to the State. It must be emphasized that subsequently only this last mentioned ground was invoked.

15. Decree-Laws Nos. 81 and 604 were enacted while the 1925 Constitution was still in force, so they were clearly in violation of that Constitution. Hence, when those decree laws were applied to expel Renan Fuentealba, a former Senator, and he lodged a writ of amparo on the ground of the unconstitutionality of those decree laws, the Government enacted Decree Law No. 788, published in the Official Gazette on December 4, 1974, which provided that all the decree laws issued to date “insofar as they are contrary to or in conflict with or different from any provision of the Constitution” were to be understood to “have had and have the status of amendatory rules, either expressed or tacit, partial or complete, of the corresponding provision of that Constitution”.

16. On March 11, 1981 the new Constitution entered into force. it maintained the constitutional guarantee that stipulates that “every person has the right to reside and remain in any place in the Republic, to move from one place to another, and to enter and leave its territory ...[4] However, that guarantee is cancelled by the Constitution itself since, as mentioned in Chapter II of this Report, it provided that, in emergency situations the constitutional guarantees may be affected and, specifically, in Article 41 (2) authorized the President to expel Chileans from the national territory by declaration of a state of siege.

17. In addition, transitory provision 24 of the Constitution authorizes the President of the Republic to declare a new state of emergency when “facts of violence designed to alter public order occur or should there be danger to the internal peace”. By this mere declaration the President is empowered, among other special attributions, to “prohibit the entry into the national territory or to expel there from those who propagate doctrines referred to in Article 8 of the Constitution, those accused of being or have reputed to be activists of such doctrines, as well as those that act contrary to the interests of Chile or constitute a danger to the internal peace”. To boot, the same article adds in its final paragraph that these measures are not subject to any appeal, except that for reconsideration thereof by the authority who ordered them.

18. The grounds that justify the declaration of this special state of emergency are so broad and subjective that in practice it is in the discretion of the President to determine who may and who may not reside in Chile. In addition, the vague nature of this penalty is established by Article 41 (7) of the Constitution, which provides that:

7. The measures adopted during states of emergency the duration of which has not been established, cannot be extended beyond the period of said states of emergency ... However, the measures providing for the expulsion from the territory of the Republic and the prohibition against entry into the country, authorized in accordance with the preceding provisions, shall remain in force despite the termination of the state of emergency which caused such measures unless the authorities expressly consider them to be without effect.


19. During the period covered by this report, the Government, in application of the legislation it has been enacting, has established various procedures and arrangements both for compulsory exit from the country and for preventing specified Chileans from entering it.

20. In the years immediately after the military coup, the attitude assumed by the Government was simply to prohibit the entry of those Chileans who had left the country.

21. Later, the Government began to expel from the country certain persons it considered a danger to the security of the State; that category included persons actively connected with human rights organizations and political and trade union leaders. In addition, with respect to some of those leaders the Government adopted the procedure of not permitting them to return to the country when they had temporarily left it. Each one of these procedures is analyzed below.

a. Prohibition of the entry of Chileans that left for political reasons during the early years of the Military Government

22. As a result of the military coup of 1973, many Chileans were forced to leave the country because they believed that they live or liberty was in danger.

23. In accordance with an aide memoire dated August 9, 1979 submitted to the Commission by the Delegation of Chile to the Organization of American States, Chileans who have a temporary or limited restriction on the right to return are those who fall into any of the following categories:

1. “Those who took refuge in accredited Embassies in Chile in 1973, 1974 and 1975.” 2. “Persons who abandoned the national territory because they were in situations similar to those described but did not seek refuge in Embassies but rather resorted to the protection of international agencies such as the Red Cross, the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migrations (CIME), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, etc.” 3. “Persons who, having been sentenced by military courts for the commission of terrorist acts or for violation of the law on the control of weapons and explosive materials, sought the benefit of the commutation of the penalties deprivative of liberty for those of exile.” 4. “Those who in one way or another voluntarily left the country, alleging political persecution or other grounds or who did so surreptitiously and illegally.” 5. “Persons who, having legally abandoned the country, carry out acts abroad contrary to the interests of Chile, who dishonor, defame or harm the reputation of the country or are known to be activists or propagandists of doctrines whose purpose is the violent overthrow of the Government or who have solicited funds for that purpose.”

24. It should be noted, however, that most of the situations described by the aide memoire of the Delegation of Chile to the Organization of American States did not involve a “temporary restriction”; on the contrary, the prohibition of entering Chile has generally been indefinite, even in the case of those sentenced by military courts whose penalties deprivative of liberty were commuted for those of exile, many of whom have not been able to return to Chile after the period of their sentence expired.

25. According to information in the possession of the Commission, [5] it is estimated that in the first two years of the military government alone about 20,000 Chileans left their country because they feared political persecution. Most of those persons were granted a passport containing an entry to the effect that it was only valid for leaving the country; others, when going to a Chilean consulate abroad to renew their passport, found that that renewal was granted them with the limitation that the passport was not valid for travel to Chile, which entry was subsequently replaced by a simple letter “L”, a symbol that meant that the holder of the passport was not authorized to return to Chile.

b. Expulsions

26. Expulsion from the national territory has been applied pursuant to the legal mechanisms established for that purpose, that is to say, Decree Law No. 604 of 1974 and, subsequently, transitory provision 24 of the Constitution.

27. In many cases, the person affected normally did not know that this sentence had been imposed on him since there had been no previous proceedings against him in which specified charges had been made and in which the person affected could have exercised his right of defense.

28. In general, the person concerned learns of the expulsion only after he has been taken to the airport or by land to the border. For its part his family has made every effort to obtain information about his fate and to send him money, documents or personal articles he needs before the expulsion takes place, but normally it does not succeed.

29. In the main, the persons affected have been connected with organizations for the defense and promotion of human rights or have been important political or trade union leaders that have been accused of endangering the security of the State. Some cases of Chileans [6] that have been expelled are mentioned below as examples.

30. on April 12, 1976, the lawyer, José Zalaquet, were expelled from Chile. He had been the Head of the Legal Department of the Pro Peace Committee. On August 6, 1976, Messrs Jaime Castillo Velasco and Eugenio Velasco Letelier, lawyers who were defenders of human rights, were the subject of such a measure after being arrested by DINA personnel, who did not show an arrest warrant or identify themselves and used violence. During the journey to the airport they were informed of the expulsion order.[7] On April 14, 1979, Mrs. Nimia Jaque de Benavente was expelled from the country after being arrested at the Pudahuel airport. She was accused of carrying with her small handmade rugs bearing anti-Chilean slogans and propaganda, letters from persons resident in Chile for Chilean exiles in Venezuela, communist reading materials, and a plan of high technology machinery belonging to the Compañía de Acero del Pacífico. [8]

31. On March 24, 1981, the Government expelled Gerardo Espinoza Carrillo, the former Minister of the Interior of President Allende. He had participated in a ceremony in memory of José Tohá, also a former Minister of the Interior of the same government [9] On August 4, 1981, Jaime Castillo Velasco (who had returned to Chile on April 5, 1978), Carlos Briones, Alberto Jerez and Orlando Cantuarias were also expelled. They were all-important public figures who had issued a declaration in support of the leaders of the Coordinadora Nacional Sindical, who were being tried by the Government. [10]

32. In December 1982, Manuel Bustos Huerta and Héctor Cuevas Salvador, the leaders of the Coordinadora Nacional Sindical (CNS) were expelled. According to the declarations of the Government, these leaders:

had maintained an obstinate and persistent attitude of ignoring the authorities, to the point of openly challenging powers and openly violating the legal system... [11]

33. Carlos Podlech, the Chairman of the National Association of Wheat Producers, was also affected by the same measure on December 5, 1982. In that regard the Ministry of the Interior stated that “the attitude of openly challenging the authorities” was the principal reason for the expulsion of this leader. The arrest took place on December 3, 1982 and on Sunday December 5 he left the country for Rio de Janeiro. According to his declarations, he was given a passport, which read “valid for the entire world”; he had no money, and no personal effects. [12]

34. The case of Messrs Jaime Insunza and Leopoldo Ortega, expelled from Chile on April 7, 1984, was processed by the Commission. The persons named were expelled in virtue of the powers granted the President by transitory provision 24 of the Constitution. The Santiago Appeal Court initially accepted the appeal presented on behalf of the persons affected, which was subsequently revoked by the Supreme Court because it was of the opinion that the remedy of amparo did not lie against the measures of the President except as it referred to the formalities required by the Constitution--validity of its powers provided for by transitory provision 24 and existence of expulsion orders. In view of this fact, the Commission, after an exhaustive analysis, adopted the following resolution:


Case 9269

5 March 1985



1. To declare that the Government of Chile has violated the right to residence and movement embodied in Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by expelling Messrs Jaime Insunza Becker and Leopoldo Ortega Rodriguez from the national territory.

2. To declare that the Government of Chile has violated the right to due process and the right to a fair trial of Messrs Jaime Insunza Becker and Leopoldo Ortega Rodriguez, embodied in Article XXVI and XVIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

3. To recommend to the Government of Chile that in a period of 60 days it rescind the measure of expulsion affecting Messrs Jaime Insunza Becker and Leopoldo Ortega Rodriguez and that, if it believes that sufficient grounds exist, it submit them to a judicial proceeding in which the rules of due process are observed, such as those stipulated by the international instruments to which Chile is a party.

4. To communicate this resolution to the Government of Chile.

5. If after the period of 60 days has elapsed, the Government of Chile has not fulfilled the recommendation made in paragraph 4 above, the Commission will include this resolution in the report it is to submit to the General Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 59 (g) of the Regulations of the Commission.

35. On July 24, 1984, Juan Parra, Osiel Núñez, René Largo Farías and Luis Godoy Gómez, leaders of the Movimiento Democrático Popular (MDP), were expelled in application of transitory provision 24 of the Constitution. Declarations issued by the Government stated that Parra “is a leader and spokesman of the MIR” and added that “the terrorist activities of the MIR are sufficiently well known by all Chileans”. Another declaration described the other three persons affected as 11agents of Soviet communism”. [13]

c Prohibitions of Entry

36. Another procedure that has characterized the practice of the Government in the matter of the right of residence and movement has consisted in prohibiting the entry into Chile of residents temporarily abroad and against whom no charges or accusations of any kind have been made.

37. Such was the case lodged on behalf of Mireya Baltra Moreno a former member of Parliament, and her husband, Reinaldo Morales, both of whom were prevented from entering Chile by order of the administrative authority, the Supreme Court rejected the application for the writ in application of Article 9 of Decree Law No. 1,009 of 1975, which stipulates that “the offenses provided for in Decree Law No. 77 of 1973, which declared Marxist political parties and movements illegal. [14]

38. On November 23, 1977 three relatives of missing detainees, Ms. Ulda Ortiz, wife of José Baeza Cruces; Ms Gabriela Bravo, wife of Carlos Lorca Tobar; and Ms Ana González, wife of Manuel Recabarren Rojas were also prevented from entering the country. They had made a trip during which they had made contact with various human rights organizations including the United Nations Commission and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and had made known the problem of disappeared detainees and the indifference of the authorities to this situation. Under Decree Law No. 1,173, issued on November 23, 1977, the very day of their arrival in Santiago, Chile, the prohibition of their entry was ordered and it was stated that the measure was adopted, “because while abroad they had engaged in activities contrary to the interests of Chile”. After various negotiations, both national and international, the prohibition was lifted after they had signed a statement in which they “undertook to respect the political recess, to obey the existing laws and to work for the aggrandizement of the country”. [15]

39. In October 1980 the Government prohibited the return to Chile of Mr. Andrés Zaldivar, at that time the Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party. Mr. Zaldivar was traveling in various European countries in the company of his wife. Mr. Sergio Fernández, the Minister of the Interior, issued a statement in which he gave as grounds for the measure the fact that Mr. Zaldivar had made declarations, published in a Mexican newspaper in which he endeavored to support “his thesis that in Chile a government with military participation different from the present could be established in Chile” which “implies affirming the eventuality of a division of our Armed and Police Forces”. The Mexican newspaper denied that Mr. Zaldivar had made those statements. A further declaration of the Minister of the Interior stated that the measure was preventive in nature and not a punishment and that it was based on the prior conduct of the political leader, since his statements to the Mexican newspaper were “only the culmination of a systematic course of behavior maintained within and outside the country...” He added that, for the measure to be revised, it was necessary for Mr. Zaldivar to “undertake officially and publicly to respect the framework of our juridical system, in the precise terms” that were indicated in the declaration of the Government. These terms were those set forth in an earlier paragraph of the declaration which says that the Government, “will on no grounds accept that anybody may try to deny respect for the constituted authority, the current order, and a new constitutional regime the people of Chile, in its sovereignty freely approved”. [16]

40. The Appeal Court rejected the application for amparo lodged by the person affected on the grounds that the decree of the Minister of the Interior prohibiting the entry of that person complied with the corresponding formalities, that the legal objections to Decree Law 604 of August 9, 1974 that applied in this case were without merit, and that Mr. Andrés Zaldívar had not respected the political recess and had referred in disrespectful terms to the plebiscite of September 11, 1980 that approved the text of the new Constitution, that is to say “he has not shown the respect or obedience any legislative system or authority may claim and that goes far beyond a mere criticism or legitimate right of dissent.” [17]

41. On October 17, 1981 the return to the country of the Illapu folklore group, which was completing an artistic tour abroad, was prohibited. The determination was made on the grounds that the members of this group, as well as the themes they interpreted, “are clearly Marxist in orientation”. This was stated by the Minister Secretary General of Government who alleged “that the Government has detected that an effort is being made to infiltrate Chilean youth through musical expression”. The performers arrived at Pudahuel airport from which they continued on to another country. [18]

42. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has had an opportunity to comment itself, through the adoption of individual resolutions, on many of the cases described, with respect to both expulsions and prohibitions of entry into Chile. In those resolutions, the Commission has invariably pointed out that such measures entail a clear violation of Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. [19]

43. On March 8, 1982, the Commission adopted a more general resolution in which it referred to 50 cases that had been presented to it for consideration. The text of that resolution is reproduced below;



March 8, 1982


1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has received a considerable number of denunciations, confirming the expulsion of many Chilean citizens from the national territory, and the Government’s refusal to allow them to re-enter the country, under the terms of the special provisions ordered under the state of emergency, which the Constitution confers on the President of the Republic of Chile.

2. The Commission has begun to process the individual cases corresponding to denunciations presented, transmitting the pertinent parts to the Government of Chile and requesting it to supply the appropriate information.

3. Each of the cases mentioned in the Appendix, which forms an integral part of this resolution, has the characteristics indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, and all processing required under the Regulations has been completed.

4. In some of its replies to the requests for information by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Government of Chile has acknowledged the expulsion and prohibition of entry into the national territory of exiles, on the grounds both of special laws enacted during the state of emergency and of the country’s new constitution. The Government has provided no information with respect to other requests.

5. The IACHR has reiterated its principles on this topic and indicated that the expulsion of nationals, not as matter of choice, as provided for in some legislations, but imposed on the subject by force, as an act against which there is no recourse whatever, is a violation of the right to residence and movement established in Article VIII of the American Declaration,

6. These expulsions, which have been decreed administratively, with no type of trial, have generally been for an indefinite period of time. That means that this is a harsher penalty than what is usual for the commission of a crime, in which the sentence is always set for a definite time period.

7. The expulsion of a citizen by his government and the prohibition on re-entry into his homeland violates the right of residence and movement.

8. Moreover, the Commission has enough evidence to conclude that the citizens mentioned in the individual cases presented here are now in exile and are unable to re-enter their country.



1. To declare that the Government of Chile has violated Article VIII (right to residence and movement) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man by preventing the exiles from returning to their homeland.

2. To recommend to the Government of Chile: a) that the persons included in this resolution be given the necessary authorization to return to their country, and b) that the Commission be informed within 90 days of the measures taken to implement this recommendation.

3. To transmit this resolution to the Government of Chile and to the petitioners in the light of Article 50.2 of the Commission’s Regulations, for the appropriate purposes.

4. To include this resolution in the Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in accordance with Article 50.4 of the Commission’s Regulations, if the Chilean Government does not implement the recommendations made within the aforementioned period. [20]

d. Effects of Exile

44. As a result of the procedures and arrangements described above, thousands of Chileans have become exiles.

45. Some of them were subsequently authorized to return and have thus been able to go back to their homeland. others, on whom the prohibition has been lifted, are no longer able to return, after having lived 12 years in another country; nevertheless, there are still many Chileans who are denied the option of living in their country.

46. The Commission has had an opportunity, through many sources, which include letters from exiles that have described their situation, to inform itself of the pernicious effects of exile. In the opinion of the Commission, exile forces the victim to become part of a world imposed on him, in which he does not care to be and from which he can only feel free as a result of his return to his country. This permanent compulsion produces a mental block and a psychological resistance that makes adaptation impossible and, instead, increases the yearning for that which is unjustly denied.


47. Some of the cases described in the foregoing sections show the way in which the Judiciary in Chile has decided cases of violations of the right to residence and movement submitted to it. Although in some situations the courts of justice have considered that the applications for amparo lodged in favor of the persons affected could be accepted and have recognized the right of the persons affected to reside in their country, the Supreme Court put an end to resolutions of that type as a result of the judgment it handed down in the case of Messrs Insunza and Rodriguez.

48. The above‑mentioned judgment confirms, at the highest jurisdictional level, the discretionary and arbitrary nature of the measures that may be adopted by the President in the matter of the right of residence and movement, under transitory provision 24 of the Constitution. it also recognizes the lack of jurisdiction of the courts to examine the factual bases of those measures in accordance with the provisions of that Constitution. As a result, by acts originating in the political sphere the right to residence and movement is suspended indefinitely without the persons affected having any effective recourse for safeguarding their right.


49. On October 25, 1982, General Augusto Pinochet announced the decision of his government to review the status of the exiles. Among other ideas the Head of the Chilean State stated:

... However, the Government is not unaware of the fact that the greatness of the homeland requires all its children who, agreeing sincerely and in good faith with the high values that should inspire civic duty, wish to work for it. Higher reasons of common good led to the adoption of the measures to which I have referred, but the Government, in its constant concern to guide society to that higher goal and in view of the present circumstances and in an endeavor justly to identify at all times the elements that best favor its pursuit, has deemed it advisable to review this matter...

50. Next he referred to the mechanism for solving the problem of exile and said:

... Because of those considerations, and seeking a prudent balance between the guarantee owed to society of keeping it free of corroding, subversive, or terrorist elements that threaten public order and tranquility and those of families and of national activities, and the desire of the Supreme Government to strengthen national unity, and recover for the homeland those who do not share those characteristics, I have decided as follows: a high level committee will review the status of all those who, recognizing the legitimacy of the Supreme Government and of the 1980 Political Constitution and having renounced persistence in the activities that gave rise to the impediment of returning to the country, accept the commitment to collaborate in the construction of the free and unified society that the new institutional system is shaping. The report of this Committee, with its concrete proposals, must be completed within this year so a report and resolutions may be adopted in accordance with the information set forth...

51. As indicated by the Head of State, a Committee was established to study the problems of exile, and prepared a document containing the rules and procedures that should be followed in that regard. This document was delivered to General Pinochet, who subsequently declared this Commission dissolved because it had completed the assignment entrusted to it

52. In 1983 the Government began to publish successive lists of persons it authorized to return. Up to August 1983 monthly lists covering between 48 and 128 names were published.

53. On August 10, 1983, when a new cabinet took office, a quantitative change occurred in the system of lists. In the following 15 days the Government published two lists covering more than 1,000 persons, each of whom was authorized to return home. Later two other lists containing 10 and 594 names were, respectively, published.

54. In those lists the names of many exiles actually appeared; but their number is exaggerated, since those lists included minors--who according to current legislation do not have any legal impediment to their return--detained persons who had disappeared, persons who had died, names that were repeated, persons that had never left the country or those who had returned without any problem.

55. On September 11, 1984, a list of 4,982 persons was published in the Santiago press. The Government delivered it to airlines flying to Chile, which must consult the International Police of Santiago before selling a ticket to that country.

56. The document bore the signature of the Prefect, National Head of the Aliens Department of the International Police, and states that, should any airline transport persons on this list to Chile, those persons may not disembark and must continue their journey in the same aircraft.

57. The above-mentioned list has subsequently been subject to various changes. The most recent list known to the Commission and dated September 1985 includes 3,878 persons who are prevented from returning to Chile. [21]

58. The question for the exiles whose names appear on that list persists, since they do not know with certainty what has been the action, the event, the situation or even which hidden enemy is the one who has motivated their inclusion on it.


59. To sum up, although relative progress has been made in the situation that prevailed up to 1982, the constitutional and legal rules that authorize the expulsion of Chileans from the national territory and prohibition of reentry in the case of those that are abroad continues to be in full force. When a measure is adopted in the exercise of the powers granted by transitory provision 24 of the Constitution of 1980, no appeal lies against it, and the Judiciary has repeatedly so stated. In the other cases, case law has established that those powers are discretionary and exclusive to the Executive so that the Judiciary has not deemed itself competent to take a decision.

60. With respect to re-entry, the system of lists of names of persons whose entry into the national territory is prohibited continues to be applied. The last list includes 3,878 names. It should therefore be inferred that all Chileans not included in that list might return freely to their homeland. However, in practice, this is not so, and the Chilean authorities themselves recommend that before traveling to Chile exiles ascertain whether or not there will be impediments to their return to the country.


[1] Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man states: Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of a State of which he is a national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his own will.

[2] Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states; 1. Every one has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Every one has the right to leave any country including his own, and return to his country.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Every one shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those, which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention. 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

For its part, Article 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights states: 1. Every person lawfully in a territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law. 2. Every person has the right to leave any country freely, including his own. 3. The exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others. 4. The exercise of the right recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest. 5. No one can be expelled from the territory of the State of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it. 6. An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to this Convention may be expelled from it only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with law. 7. Every person has the right to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the State and international conventions, in the event he is being pursued for political offenses or related common crimes. 8. In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions. 9. The collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.

[3] Declaration of Principles of the Government of Chile of March 11, 1974.

[4] Article 19. (7) (A) of the 1980 Constitution.

[5] United Nations. General Assembly. A/10285. October 7, 1975. Report of the Economic and Social Council. Protection of human rights in Chile, p. 56.

[6] In addition to Chileans, many aliens, especially members of religious orders, have been expelled from Chile or prohibited from returning to it. Although the measure of expelling an alien does not strictly imply a violation of the right to residence and movement, the expulsion of foreign members of religious orders in Chile has meant a serious violation of the rules of due process and of freedom of religion.

Some of these expulsions are dealt with in the chapter on the situation of human rights organizations.

[7] The case of the expulsion of Messrs. Castillo and Velasco (No. 4288) was a matter of special concern to the IACHR, which approached various Chilean authorities to obtain authorization for them to reentry the country. On October 16, 1981 the Commission adopted Resolution No. 55/81 relating to Mr. Velasco. See IACHR Annual Report, 1981-1982, p. 57.

[8] El Mercurio of Santiago. April 17, 18 and 19, 1979.

[9] El Mercurio of Santiago. May 25, 1981.

[10] El Mercurio of Santiago. August 12, 1981 and “Las Ultimas Noticias”, August 14, 1981.

[11] La Tercera. December 4, 1982.

[12] La Tercera. December 9, 1982.

[13] Las Ultimas Noticias. July 25, 1984. La Tercera. August 5, 1984. Las Ultimas Noticias. August 7, 1984.

[14] El Mercurio, August 13, 1980.

[15] La Tercera January 19,1978.

[16] El Mercurio of Santiago, October 17, 18 and 19, 1980.

[17] El Mercurio of Santiago, December 30, 1980.

[18] La Segunda, October 7, 1981.

[19] Of those resolutions mention may be made of the following relating to: Manuel Fernando Ostornol Fernández (No. 3411); Antonio Arevalo Sagredo (No. 3412); Pedro Rojas Jorquera (No. 3413); Regulo Rosson del Pino (No. 3414); Silvia Angela Costa Espinoza (No. 3415); Guillermo Torres Gaona (No. 3416); Mireya Baltra (No. 3418); Carlos Vassallo Rojas (No. 3419); Benjamin Teplizky Lijavetzky (No. 3428); Omar Leal Oyarzun (No. 3434); Marya Lazo B. (No. 3435); Claudio Fonseca Pedraza (No. 3436), Héctor Valeria Labrana (No. 3440); Carlos Andrade V. (No 3441); Samuel Riquelme Cruz (No. 3442); Inés Cornejo C. (No. 3443); Sergio Insunza Becker (No. 3444); Inés Carmona Cale (No. 3446); Victor J. Soto Alvarez (No. 3498); Armin Sergio Luhr Vicencio (No. 3548); Professor Eugenio Velasco L. (No. 4288); Evelyn Krotoschiner Kleman (No. 4662); Alberto Texier and Maria Aranguiz de Texier (No. 5713); Jaime Insunza Becker and Leopoldo Ortega Rodríguez (No. 9269).

[20] Annex to the Resolution on Chilean Exiles

The Commission has the names of many persons who have been forced into exile and in respect of whom the IACHR earlier adopted a resolution.

Therefore, the following list does not include that large number of persons.

No. Name Case No.
01 ALEITE, Fernando 3425

ALEGRIA, Alvaro Julio

03 ALMONACID PRADO, Ovidio 3417
04 ALVAREZ ROHAS, Graciela 7495
05 BARAHONA MUROZ, Luis Hernán 3420


08 BITAR CH, Sergio 7495




11 CANTUARIAS, Orlando 7880
14 COPPOLA OYARZUN, Salvattori 3433
15 CUETO ROMAN, Patricio C. Lautaro 7456
16 DELANO DE LA CRUZ, Arturo 7495
17 DUVAUCHELLA, Héctor 7495
18 ESPEJO BRAIN, Patricia 7495


20 GARCIA VIEJO, Cecilia 7495
22 GUILLEN GRAF, Nora 7495


24 HERRERA H., Fidelia 3374
25 HUEPE, Claudio 7495


27 JARA ZAMBRANO, Jose R. 4122

JEREZ, Alberto



30 LAGOS REYES, Carlos Edgardo 3914
31 LAGOS AGUIRRE, Edgardo Javier 3914


33 MARTINEZ QUEZADA, Jorge Domingo 7774


35 MORIS, Maria Concepcion 4122

MOYA, Oscar

37 NOVOA MONREAL, Eduardo 7480


40 POLLIER BUSTOS, Alejandro 7495




43 RODRIGUZ CORTES, Nelson 3888
44 SEPULVEDA, Sergio Antonio 7697






48 VERA PAULO, Guillermo y familia 7091
49 VICIANI ESCKER, Orel 7495
50 ZALDIVAR, Andrés 7516

[21] El Mercurio of Santiago, September 18, 1985.


Home || Treaties || Search || Links