October 8, 2025 / informativoanarquista
Translated by Act for freedom now!
On July 21, already 10 weeks ago, the trial against comrades Aldo and Lucas began.
The 8th week took place from 7 September, continued the evidentiary phase, in which each of the defense attorneys began to present their evidence. These consisted of a number of witnesses and a criminal expert who prepared a comprehensive report addressing various points of the investigation carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, including the detection and identification of the subjects under investigation. He reviewed videos compiled by the police at the instruction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office showing the exit and escape route of the explosive attack on the National Directorate of the Gendarmerie, and sets of photos related to investigations after the day of the action, which were recorded by cameras that were installed on the public road at two points of Pedro Aguirre Cerda, and one in Recoleta, as well as footage taken from cameras on private home and municipalities. In conclusion, the defence expert held that it was not possible to identify, let alone recognize, either of the two people responsible through the images provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, therefore, it cannot be indicated through these images that one of the perpetrators of the attack is indeed Aldo.
On September 16, the trial of Aldo’s defence ended and the trial of Lucas was carried out. It consisted of only a statement by the police officer who arrested him to give detailed information about this particular event, Thus, the exhibition of the defence evidence was completed and the 9th week concluded.
After the end of the entire evidentiary phase, a recess was held until Monday September 22, when the 10th week began, consisting of closing arguments. The Prosecutor began, holding that through the evidence provided during the whole trial he succeeded in corroborating the responsibility of Aldo in all the acts contained in the indictment, that is, the explosive attack on the Gendarmerie, and the various proscribed elements found in a residence of the 5th region and another of the Pedro Aguirre Cerda commune, the latter attributing joint responsibility with Lucas. This, he indicated, achieved his objective of determining the guilt of the two brothers.
Then it was the turn of the lawyer of the ministry of public security, which in a brief statement reaffirmed what the prosecutor said.
The last closing argument of the plaintiffs was that of the lawyer from the Chilean Gendarmerie, who in her presentation pointed out the gravity of attacking an institution such as the gendarmerie and stressed that the officials who were inside the National Directorate on the day of the events suffered psychological consequences from the attack and could even have died.
The closing arguments of the plaintiffs gave way to the defence, starting with that of Aldo which exposed the shortcomings in the investigation and the impossibility of identifying Aldo as the author of any of the acts he was accused of. He also noted the clear bias with which the investigation was conducted against Aldo, since evidence from acts not contained in the indictment such as those relating to the attack on Banco Estado del Apumanque were incorporated into the trial. The police claim to have identified Aldo as responsible even though no one has been charged with this act, thus violating due process and various legal principles such as congruence, presumption of innocence, among others.
The defence of Lucas continued, which in its closing statement said that in more than a year of follow-up research, recordings and telephone interception by the Public Prosecutor’s Office were not able to show any evidence involving the accused with the acts under investigation, beyond the discovery made on the day of the raids in which various prohibited items were found inside the home of Pedro Aguirre Cerda. Despite these findings and the fact that the police carried out various examinations of the elements, it was not possible to find DNA or fingerprints on the scene or on any weapons, explosives, etc. Also, the defense mentioned that since there are no recordings of the procedure carried out at the home, it could not be ruled out that the police manipulated the site of the event in order to attribute everything found to Lucas.
At the end of the closing arguments of all involved, a recess was held until Tuesday, September 30, during which the replies by the prosecution and defense will be developed>