|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Querellan al Alto Mando del Ejército por desacato: Acusan maniobra para rehuir condena de capitán del Estallido Social

The lawsuit targets Generals Pedro Varela and Javier Iturriaga for continuing to process a medical retirement for Captain José Faúndez, who has been sentenced to 15 years in prison, while disregarding orders from the Government and the Supreme Court for his immediate dismissal.

The attorney representing the family of Romario Veloz, Adriana Rojas, has filed a complaint for the crime of contempt before the 7th Criminal Court of Santiago against Army Commander in Chief Pedro Varela Sabando and General Javier Iturriaga del Campo for failing to execute the expulsion of Captain José Santiago Faúndez Sepúlveda, who was criminally convicted in 2023.

It is important to note that Captain José Santiago Faúndez was sentenced by the Oral Criminal Trial Court of La Serena to 15 years in prison for unnecessary violence resulting in death in the case of Romario Veloz and serious injuries to two other individuals during the social unrest of 2019. The ruling is final and includes a lifetime disqualification from holding public office.

The complaint states that instead of immediately discharging Faúndez due to the conviction, the Army initiated an internal procedure to grant him an “absolute retirement due to disability” (a permanent illness that allegedly occurred while in service). The complaint alleges that this is a maneuver to evade the legal ruling and maintain an irregular employment status, which has been both warned and rejected by the Undersecretariat of Armed Forces and the Supreme Court in January 2026.

Chronology of Contempt: Over a Year Ignoring the Government and Justice 

The facts detailed in the complaint indicate that the Chilean Army issued two official responses to public information access requests (under the Transparency Law) dated April 27 and May 19, 2026. In both letters, the institution explicitly admits that the absolute retirement of Captain José Santiago Faúndez Sepúlveda “is currently being processed.”

The Army’s argument for not providing the aforementioned documents was that they pertained to information or prior deliberations surrounding a resolution that was still pending, which revealed in writing that —for the institution— the officer was still undergoing regular retirement procedures and was not dismissed due to the judicial penalty.

It is worth noting that the delay in this non-compliance is over a year. In fact, on February 12, 2025, the Undersecretariat for Armed Forces returned the records to the Army through a memo that explicitly instructed applying the cause of subsequent disqualification, that is, to discharge him due to the conviction. This instruction was reiterated by the same governmental body on September 25, 2025.

And the case does not end there. Faúndez himself filed a protective action to try to force his retirement for health reasons. However, on January 13 of this year, the Supreme Court definitively rejected the action, concluding that such a route was inadmissible given the final criminal conviction.

Additionally, despite having the government order in 2025 and the Supreme Court ruling in early 2026, the Army maintained the health processing unchanged until May of this year.

Medical Retirement: The Maneuver to Preserve the Captain’s Benefits 

The complaint emphasizes that the current situation has exceeded the threshold of mere “administrative inefficiency or delay” or differences in interpretation. It also accuses the High Command of having an omissive and deliberate conduct to evade the effects of the sentencing that stipulated 15 years of imprisonment and a permanent disqualification from public office.

Furthermore, the document invokes Article 76 of the Constitution, which stipulates that authorities cannot qualify the grounds of judicial rulings or delay their fulfillment. By attempting to substitute the cause of “discharge due to conviction” with “retirement due to disabling illness occurring in the line of duty” (which also alters the conditions of exit and benefits), Army officials would be materially frustrating what was ordered by the court, fitting perfectly into the contempt offense outlined in Article 240 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Justice for Romario Veloz: The Ruling the Army Fails to Execute 

It should be remembered that Romario Veloz Cortés was a 26-year-old Ecuadorian citizen and civil engineering student who was murdered on October 20, 2019, in La Serena amidst the social unrest protests.

According to court records, then-Captain José Santiago Faúndez Sepúlveda ordered to open fire on civilians near the Mall Plaza La Serena, using weaponry loaded with war ammunition. One of those shots struck Romario Veloz and caused his death, while two other individuals were severely injured.

After years of investigation and an extensive judicial process, the Supreme Court confirmed in May 2025 the effective conviction of 15 years in prison against Faúndez for the crime of unnecessary violence resulting in death and for the serious injuries caused to two other victims.

Accountability the Army Must Face Before the Public Prosecutor 

Finally, the complaint requests that the Public Prosecutor’s Office order the Chilean Army to submit a complete copy of all administrative records related to Captain Faúndez Sepúlveda, including medical reports from the Health Commission, selection board minutes, decrees, internal resolutions, memoranda, and any institutional communication regarding his retirement.

Additionally, the legal action requires that the Army officially report under what status the convicted individual currently stands, that is, whether he remains on active duty, retired, or in another situation. They also request clarification on the legal basis for such status.

Furthermore, they seek to question key officials involved in this matter. On one hand, Army officers who processed the disability retirement must explain why they did not apply the discharge due to the conviction; on the other hand, officials from the Undersecretariat for Armed Forces, who drafted the insistence memos in 2025, must certify that the governmental order existed and was disregarded.

Lastly, they request to obtain a certified copy of the execution file regarding human rights violations from the La Serena Court to record all notifications that were formally sent to the Army ordering compliance with the ruling.

El Ciudadano.

La entrada Legal Action Against High Command of the Army for Contempt: Accusations of Maneuvering to Avoid Sentencing of Social Unrest Captain se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.