|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Caso Romario Veloz: abogada advierte que indultar a Faúndez “podría constituir una forma de impunidad”

Romario Veloz Case: Lawyer Warns that Pardoning Faúndez Could Lead to Impunity

Last week, journalist Mónica Pérez revealed on Duna Radio that former Army captain José Santiago Faúndez Sepúlveda—convicted to 15 years in prison for unnecessary violence resulting in death and serious injuries to others during the social upheaval of 2019 in La Serena, which resulted in the death of Romario Veloz—might be the first individual pardoned by President José Kast.

According to the journalist, the pardon would be justified on the grounds that prior to the incident, the former captain had initiated his discharge from the Army due to health issues, though this request was not finalized at the time.

It is noteworthy that the murder of Ecuadorian youth Romario Veloz Cortez occurred on October 20, 2019, when the military officer ordered his subordinates to fire real ammunition at demonstrators attempting to enter the La Serena mall. In addition to hitting Veloz, two others were shot as well.

Importantly, five years after the events, specifically on May 7, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling affirming the 15-year prison sentence of Captain José Faúndez, found guilty of Romario Veloz’s death during the social protests.

The Ciudadano spoke with Adriana Rojas, attorney for Mery Cortez, mother of Romario Veloz, concerning the potential pardon for former Army Captain José Santiago Faúndez Sepúlveda.

-From a legal perspective, what does it mean that the Supreme Court declared the sentence against Captain José Faúndez for the murder of Romario Veloz unappealable?

-The Supreme Court rejected two complaints filed against the judges of the La Serena Court of Appeals, who initially dismissed the appeals for nullity submitted by the four soldiers originally convicted by the La Serena Oral Criminal Court. In a second ruling, they also dismissed the appeal filed only by one of the convicted soldiers who requested to serve his sentence in freedom.

It’s important to clarify that in criminal trials, the appeal process is restricted to exceptional circumstances, meaning that the conviction decision was never truly appealable. The soldiers requested nullification of the trial and sentencing, which the La Serena Appeals Court denied. Furthermore, not all soldiers filed complaints; only Captain José Faúndez Sepúlveda and Corporal José Arenas Mancilla did, while conscript Carlos Robledo Olguín accepted the Appeals Court decision.

-If the President were to grant a pardon in this case, what implications would it have regarding a firm sentence for a crime committed by a state agent?

-It would effectively nullify the penalty imposed by the Court, but the acts for which the soldiers were convicted would not be discredited. A pardon does not imply declaring the innocence of a convicted individual; it simply means that the conviction is rendered ineffective. In fact, the criminal record of the convicted person would not be altered either.

-Are there any legal or institutional limits that could prevent a pardon in a case linked to human rights violations?

-The law governing pardons sets strict requirements that must be met; in addition to that, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights states that pardons, commutations of sentence, or prison benefits granted in such cases can constitute a form of impunity, as they undermine the state’s duty to investigate, prosecute, and penalize those responsible for serious human rights violations. The inter-American system upholds that, when it comes to serious human rights violations, states have enhanced obligations for criminal prosecution and effective sanctioning; any mechanism that impedes or nullifies the sentence can infringe upon the victims’ right to justice and reparations. Therefore, interpreting the pardon law in a way that favors convicted soldiers entails incurring state liability, which can be pursued in the inter-American system.

-How does Romario Veloz’s family receive the possibility of the convicted party being potentially pardoned?

-We wish to highlight that Romario Veloz Cortez is one of three victims in this case. The other two victims are César Véliz Cortés and Rolando Robledo Vergara. All of them and their respective families have received this news with distress, indignation, and fear, as it overlooks the traumatic experience they endured not only on October 20, 2019, but that they continue to live due to the ongoing revictimization and denial from both the state and private individuals who repudiate, justify, or even celebrate the human rights violations committed by the military agents involved in this case. Specifically, the prospect of criminals walking free generates justified fears of repercussions; let’s remember that memorials for Romario have been vandalized at various times by far-right groups.

-The investigation established that Captain Faúndez issued a second fire command knowing there was already a wounded person and that his subordinates had live ammunition. Why is it crucial for the public to understand that this was not a «mistake» in the chaos, but a conscious decision?

-It is essential to understand the conscious level of violence directed against the civilian population by agents of the Army, who, under Faúndez’s command, posed a significant risk to all citizens, and we must not trivialize the use of state force.

When an officer gives a second fire order knowing there is already a wounded person and that his subordinates are using live ammunition, it reveals a deliberate decision to escalate violence against unarmed civilians, taken with full awareness of its consequences.

Properly naming what occurred is a minimal condition for public truth, as reducing it to an “error” dilutes responsibility, distorts the gravity of the events, and erodes the democratic limits that must govern the actions of armed state agents. Recent history shows that impunity begins precisely when conscious acts of state violence are transformed into mere mistakes within the public narrative. Thus, understanding that there was a decision made to shoot real ammunition at the civilian population is vital to maintain the standard of accountability demanded by international human rights law regarding severe violations.

-There has been a narrative suggesting that the military acted in a context of «extreme violence.» Based on what was established in court, was there a real threat to the life of the military personnel that justified the use of SIG and Galil rifles against the protesters at that exact moment?

-No, there was no such threat; audiovisual evidence ruled out any risk to the integrity and life of the military personnel. This was clearly established in the judicial truth.

-With the President announcing an evaluation of a pardon for officials who «defended the homeland,» what signal do you think is being sent to society if someone convicted of «unnecessary violence resulting in death» is set free shortly after a final sentence?

-That in Chile, there are still sectors of power willing to justify state violence, even when it has been declared illegal and criminal by the courts. The signal is extremely serious, as it conveys that a firm sentence can be relativized for political reasons and that, in the case of state agents, there is always the possibility of receiving preferential treatment. 

Moreover, if it is asserted that these officials “defended the homeland,” the message becomes even more troubling: that for the highest authority of the country, “the homeland” is defended by killing unarmed civilians with military-grade weaponry. This not only undermines trust in justice but also reopens the pain of the victims and normalizes a dangerous narrative about the use of state force.

-The press has mentioned that Captain Faúndez’s defense might argue mental health issues at the time of the events. Was there compelling evidence of this during the trial or is it a new strategy to facilitate the pardon?

-There were no indications during the trial that altered his criminal responsibility for the events. What is being attempted today seems more like a strategy designed to facilitate future benefits. In fact, even the Supreme Court rejected Captain Faúndez’s attempt to benefit from his own crime by trying to retire due to a supposed mental health issue, the only precedent being his order to shoot at civilians.  Now, mental health problems within prisons are not new; it is a reality that must be addressed, but it cannot be resolved with pardons, nor does it serve as justification for them.

-This case has been seen by many as an important precedent regarding the accountability of state agents during the social upheaval. Could a pardon weaken that precedent?

-Yes, undoubtedly. A pardon in this case undermines the symbolic and legal weight of a conviction that took years of investigation and litigation. It does not erase the sentence, but it sends a very dangerous political message, suggesting that even when an agent of the state is convicted of serious violations, that responsibility can later be emptied of meaning by executive decision.

-What legal tools or actions could the family consider if the pardon is granted to the convicted captain?

-The family can consider actions both nationally and internationally. Among them are examining the legality and rationale of the pardon act, potentially filing constitutional or administrative lawsuits, and activating international human rights protection mechanisms for failing to fulfill the state’s duty to adequately sanction severe violations. The important thing is that a decision of this nature is not immune from review nor does it close off legal discussion.

-Beyond this specific case, what impact could such a decision have on other cases of human rights violations that occurred during the social upheaval?

-It could have a devastating effect. First, it would discourage victims and witnesses who have undergone long and painful processes to obtain justice. Second, it would strengthen the notion that there is selective impunity for state agents. And third, it would compromise the responsibility of the Chilean state regarding its duty to investigate, sanction, and repair human rights violations. This is not just an individual case; it is an institutional signal about how much justice truly means for the victims.

La entrada Romario Veloz Case: Lawyer Warns that Pardoning Faúndez Could Lead to Impunity se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.