Karina Riquelme Viveros is a Chilean lawyer recognized for her work defending members of Mapuche communities, victims of state violence, as well as for her involvement in cases related to human rights and territorial conflicts in southern Chile. She currently represents the family of Julia Chuñil Catricura, a 72-year-old Mapuche woman missing since November 2024 in the commune of Máfil, in the Los Ríos region. This case has taken on particular importance at the national and international levels due to allegations of harassment and territorial conflict linked to the municipality where his disappearance took place; Proceedings regarding the case are underway before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Committee against Enforced Disappearances.
For years, the lawyer has been subject to harassment and surveillance by state agents, including:
- Investigations and police surveillance denounced since 2010;
- Surveillance and eavesdropping as part of ’”Operation Huracán”;
- Photographs and surveillance taken by police officers while the lawyer was carrying out her defense duties in court;
- a shadowing of Karina Riquelme and lawyer Patricia Cuevas near the Río Bueno court detailed in police reports dating from 2023.
On August 7, 2026, a hearing was held at the Valdivia court to clarify Karina’s procedural situation. On this occasion, the prosecutor in charge of the case appeared anonymously, invoking the protective measures provided for in Article 78 ter of the Chilean Code of Criminal Procedure, reserved exclusively for cases of serious threat or linked to organizations criminals. During this hearing, Karina Riquelme was officially informed that she did not have the status of intervening party in this case or in others related to her defense of the Chuñil family. The court also rejected the prosecution’s request to exclude human rights observers, which allowed the OIAD to be present at the hearing.
Finally, the legal team representing Karina Riquelme filed an appeal for constitutional protection, filed on August 19 of this year, concerning the illegal shadowing denounced by the lawyer. Despite the Court’s rejection, the decision includes a consideration expressly addressed to the Judicial Police, in which the institution is invited to exercise “particular attention” in its procedures so as not to undermine the free exercise of the lawyer’s profession, particularly when investigations take place in places where she usually exercises her functions. The decision further states that police action must comply with instructions given by the public prosecutor.
