If there is a feeling that prevails in Yellow for Chileis the restlessness.
In the political party founded by renowned people who made up the Concertation -alliance that governed the country from 1990 to 2010- There is still debate about the vote on Friday of last week of its president, the deputy Andrés Jouannet, in favor of an indication – finally declared inadmissible – that was intended return to military justice cases in which uniformed personnel committed a crimein the fulfillment of public order and security tasks, even when there were civilian victims.
The issue is sensitive among the yellows. And even in the government program of the late former president Patrick Aylwin it was proposed that military courts should concentrate exclusively on military cases and not in matters of human rights violations, whose cases should go to ordinary courts. And, as if that were not enough, Soledad Alvear and Jorge Burgos, two well-known disciples of Aylwin and today party memberswere key to the big changes to military justice in 2010 and 2016.
In this context, the adherents of Yellows They began to express themselves in the chats shared by the militancy. One of the interventions that resonated most among them was that of the former minister Mariana Aylwinwho shared the document The problems of justicewritten by his father, Patrick Aylwinin March 1987.
In the text, along with warning of the problems that affected the Judiciary, the former President denounced that “the jurisdiction of the military courts, established to judge their peers, has been astonishingly expanded, but now – contrary to the principles that justify them – They judge civilians much more than those in uniform, through exceptional procedures that are at odds with old constitutional principles.”.
The message from the former Secretary of State responded to the fact that, although she was finally declared inadmissible, Deputy Jouannet strongly defended the idea of restoring military justice when the rules of use of force.
On May 3, during his speech, the parliamentarian stated that “When you go to an airport in Italy, you meet military personnel. Today’s military are not those of the dictatorship or the right. Today’s military has consistently demonstrated that it has convictions that adhere to the law. The problem we have is that we normalize insecurity and violence (…). The military will not act if they do not have sufficient guarantees to do so. We were doing that the other day and that is why we proposed military justice”.
Along with sharing the document signed by his father, Aylwin He also wrote a message to his party colleagues: “I completely disagree with the idea of restoring military justice. The issue of certainty for the Armed Forces to act, which is the only argument, reveals distrust in civil justice and desire for impunity. Besides, is to remove an issue on which there was 20 years of debate”.
His criticism did not stop there. In the same message The former minister added that “the worst thing is that the president of the party (Andrés Jouannet) appears as spokesperson for the initiative”. Along with that, he claimed that “when I asked for arguments, except Iris (Boeninger)who has a different and legitimate opinion but is not part of the board, answered. You cannot operate under the discretion of judgment in an issue that involves us as a party. For me, this is a point that seems serious.”.
Not only did she react with annoyance. María Alicia Ruiz-Taglesister of Eugenio Ruiz-Tagle -killed by the Caravan of Death-, stated that “the real problem is the activism and politicization of our judiciary. Given our inability to correct this situation, “We are opting for a patch solution that can help in the moment when crime is unleashed and be a lifesaver later.”
Thomas Aylwinalso an adherent of the community, wrote in the same chat: “I would like to raise an issue that worries me deeply: Amarillos for Chile is a centrist party, which comes mainly from the Concertación, which (…) among its objectives and achievements was to bring the Carabineros and military to the knowledge of civil justice. Part of our opposition to the plurinational mess was precisely arguing that it was inadmissible for us to have parallel justice systems (…) What happened here? This goes directly against everything we have proposed for the last 30 years.”.
For its part, Maria Odette Moralesdaughter of Salvador Allende’s former minister Mireya BaltraI affirm that “Yellows should always defend great values that are the basis of our democracy. One of them is equality before the law. It is precisely because of this great principle that I voted against it on September 4 when indigenous justice was proposed.”
The political scientist Enrique Moralesalso a militant Yellowshe said in the same WhatsApp group that “military justice would be a setback and is certainly far from democratic values, equality before the law and a centrist position.”
Bernadette Sotowho is part of the board of Jouannetrecognized in the same space that “I can point out as a member of the board that there are differences on this issue”. And he announced that “specific members of our body were entrusted with generating a proposal on security and the issue in question (…), to produce a serious document.”
Consulted by this means, Mariana Aylwin He added that “there is only one parliamentarian (in the party) and he has his opinion, but I have a different one. And many of us have it regarding the issue in Amarillos. I think it is a mistake to even revive this debate, which had years of discussion. It is completely contradictory to what many of us in Amarillo have defended.. Here the only thing the party can contribute is a consistent view. We are opposition, but we do not have to be with the opposition in everything”.
While, Jouannet He told this medium, in reference to the debate on the rules of the use of force, that this discussion “has not occurred in the party.” And in particular regarding the indication referring to military justice, he explained that “Context makes the difference.””.
In that sense, the helmsman explained that “we have proposed it in four moments: in states of exception, in protection of critical infrastructure, borders and for popular elections. It is fundamentally limited to military personnel, not civilians. In this, everyone can have their opinion, but the deputies cannot receive orders from the party, because that is illegal, although the opinion of the militants is valid.”.
 for supporting the restoration of military justice){kind=link}