Argentina’s embassy in Chile said its head, Rafael Bielsa, did not ask for parole for Mapuche leader Facundo Jones Huala, an Argentine citizen who was extradited to the country in 2018 for an arson attack in the Los Ríos Region in 2013. The sentenced man is serving a nine-year sentence.
In a thread on Twitter, the embassy noted that “Ambassador Bielsa virtually attended a hearing of the Temuco Parole Commission, an administrative instance, in which the aptitude to obtain or not the benefit of the parole of citizen Huala was treated.”
In addition to emphasizing that “in no way” the agency “has been part of the judicial process,” they indicated that “the international regulations that frame the participation of the Embassy in the aforementioned hearing are, among others, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), specifically its articles 3 and 36.1 subsection ‘c'”.
They also explained that the Mapuche leader requested assistance through his lawyer. “There have been cases in which the lawyer does it and then the detainee disauthorizes it, in which the Embassy refrained from participating, as the norm commands,” they said.
“This is a regular task carried out by both the consulates and the Ambassador himself, given his character as Head of Mission,” they said.
“The Ambassador did not ask the Commission to grant or stop granting parole, and limited himself to responding to the statements of the representative of the Ministry of the Interior of Chile, who is not part of the Board,” they added.
According to the agency, “the statements of the representative of the Chilean Executive postulated as a valid reason for the denial of parole to the Argentine citizen his cultural identity.”
“That is contradictory to the entire international human rights order to which both countries are part, because it cannot be accepted that the basis for depriving him of a benefit to which he is entitled under Chilean law is his identity and not his actions,” they said.
Finally, they assured that the participation of Ambassador Bielsa in the hearing did not “inrogó expenses” to the Argentine State.
