Original article: Diputado Luis Cuello, sobre decisión de aplicar Ley de Seguridad del Estado a estudiantes UACH: “El crimen organizado debe estar celebrando que la Ministra de Seguridad se dedique a perseguir estudiantes mientras aumentan los homicidios” A significant judicial and political shift has emerged in the case involving the University Austral of Chile (UACh), following the government’s decision to invoke the State Security Law against three students charged with assaulting Minister of Science, Ximena Lincolao. This measure has been sharply criticized by Deputy Luis Cuello, who described it as «utterly disproportionate» and accused the administration of using the situation as a «smokescreen» to distract from the country’s ongoing security crisis. «It is utterly disproportionate, an ill-timed action for the Minister of Security to attempt to imprison three students and furthermore invoke the State Security Law.
We will not accept the criminalization of the student movement. This is a smokescreen to hide the government’s failure to provide safety for Chileans,» the lawmaker asserted. Attorney Mauricio Daza commented to El Ciudadano, stating, «The State Internal Security Law allows the government of the day to exponentially increase penalties for specific cases beyond what is set by common law for certain crimes.
Since the conditions for doing so are vaguely defined, it has effectively become a tool for political persecution through the penal system, arbitrarily exercised by those in power, as it can only be applied if the Minister of the Interior or the presidential delegate files a complaint invoking it for a specific case. » On Monday, the three students were formally charged with assaulting authority, following events that transpired on April 8 on the Isla Teja campus. However, the Ministry of Security has opened the door to a judicial escalation lacking substantiation in light of the events.
Was There a Kidnapping? Legal Definition and Specific Case From a legal standpoint, the crime of kidnapping – governed by Article 141 of the Penal Code – necessitates a central element of illegitimate deprivation of liberty of a person, without justification, with real impossibility of movement, generally for a specific purpose. The complaint claims that the minister was held for more than two hours in a context of violence and intimidation, which, according to the complainants, would constitute this crime.
However, evidence contained in the investigation and official statements undermine that interpretation. According to the statement from the presidential delegate of Los Ríos, the minister was not under direct control of her assailants but was secured in internal spaces alongside police authorities while safety conditions for her departure were assessed. The regional authority was able to leave the site in similar circumstances, indicating there was no absolute deprivation of liberty as required by the legal definition.
Furthermore, UACh rector Egon Montecino declared that the decision to keep the minister inside the facility was precisely based on safety considerations, due to an inability to guarantee a risk-free exit. In other words, it was not a retention executed by a group with effective control over the victim but a crisis situation with mobility restricted due to the context. New Complaint: The Kidnapping Thesis and Attempt to Implicate the Rector In parallel, a criminal complaint filed with the Valdivia Guarantee Court aims to consolidate the kidnapping thesis and even attribute criminal responsibility to the university rector, Egon Montecinos, as an author, accomplice, and perpetrator.
This action has been presented by Diana Maritza Encarnación Silva Aguillón, a journalist who reportedly made a quantum leap in her political definitions, moving from pro Frente Amplio to endorsing Johannes Kaiser’s presidential candidacy. The document maintains that the university authority had prior knowledge of potential demonstrations, failed to implement sufficient security measures, and subsequently contributed to prolonging the alleged detention through negotiations with students. It even argues that his statement before the Senate diverted the investigation.
However, this line of argument presents serious inconsistencies in light of the evidence in the case. According to the presidential delegate’s statement, the strategy of non-immediate intervention by Carabineros was a decision shared by present authorities, aiming to avoid escalating the conflict further (“pouring gasoline on a fire”). The delegate stated before BIPE that she learned through social media, approximately a week prior, of Minister Lincolao’s visit to the University Austral.
Simultaneously, the Delegate stated that Prefect Cea was in contact with the General of Carabineros, who had not attended the meeting. The general indicated that officers were deployed in the vicinity but would not enter the premises «as that would be pouring gasoline on a fire. » In response, according to Carrasco’s statement, the head of PDI exclaimed that «a procedure would be carried out to remove us both.
» The facts show that the rector not only did not participate in any alleged deprivation of liberty but attempted to facilitate the minister’s exit, managing dialogues with students and coordinating evacuation alternatives. The thesis to charge him with kidnapping – even under a theory of omission – appears, in this context, legally forced and hard to sustain. Speaking with an attorney from the area about El Ciudadano, it was noted, «From a strictly legal point of view, the complaint has a structural flaw as it tries to classify a situation as kidnapping, whereas the evidence suggests it corresponds to a context of risk and disorder, rather than an illegitimate deprivation of liberty as required by the legal definition.
The minister was not under the control of captors, but was secured by personnel of the PDI, Navy, and University Austral itself, evaluating safe exit conditions. The presidential delegate also managed to leave the place under similar circumstances, contradicting the notion of absolute deprivation of liberty. In criminal law, that difference is crucial as without effective control over the victim, there is no kidnapping, regardless of how grave or reprehensible the incident may have been.
» “Additionally, the accusation against the rector involves a legal overextension that is difficult to sustain. He is simultaneously attributed the role of author, accomplice, and perpetrator, based on an alleged omission – not activating the Carabineros – which is not even presented as a direct cause of the outcome, considering that other authorities also ruled out that path. To that adds a clear contradiction as the complaint itself acknowledges instances of dialogue and even a meeting in cordial terms, which is incompatible with the logic of a kidnapping,” the attorney pointed out.
Political and Judicial Escalation The case has transformed from an episode of protest with aggression – condemnable and already judicialized – into a greater controversy over the use of exceptional penal tools for political purposes. In an interview with El Ciudadano, Deputy Luis Cuello was emphatic, stating, «Criminal organizations must be celebrating that the Minister of Security is focusing on pursuing students while homicides rise,» directly pointing to the government’s priorities. This comes during a context where figures from the Public Ministry, published by El País, reveal that since the new government took office – on March 11 – to Monday, April 6, there have been 26 homicides and attempted homicides (15 completed and 11 frustrated).
The Organized Crime and Homicides Team (ECOH) of the prosecutor’s office reported that in 2025, under Gabriel Boric’s administration and during the same period, there were 19 homicides and attempted homicides (16 completed and three frustrated). The increase in this type of crime was 36. 8% during Kast’s government.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Security maintains a push for harsher criminal prosecution against a student who threw water, another who slapped a vehicle’s glass, and one who threw their backpack at a car, all in a scenario where the line between public order, social protest, and criminalization of the student movement is once again at the forefront of debate. However, the matter is more serious than it appears because what is at stake is not only the legal qualification of the specific incident but the precedent it could set. If a situation of disorder and violence on a university campus, in pursuit of student rights, can be reinterpreted as kidnapping and a threat to state security, the political and judicial implications might extend far beyond this case.
This seems to be what the government, overwhelmed by its missteps, seeks to achieve while gradually heightening social discontent.