Clarification of evidence Joaquin Plaza Rossa, attorney in conventional representation of Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman and Claro & Co. … C 1036-2021, to this Court I respectfully state:
Within the deadline, making use of the citation conferred by the resolution of August 8, 2022 (Folio 121) in regard to the submitted document by the plaintiff, Mr. Jorge Lopehandia, by presentation of August 1, 2022 (Folio 102).
Mr. Jorge Lopehandia submitted a simple copy of the supplementary statement give by Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman on December 16, 2020 (the “Complementary Statement”) in relation to his Affidavit of May 31, 2017.
By the Complementary Statement, Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman clarified certain aspects of his Affidavit without altering its substance:
- He clarified that the pieces of the files of the judicial processes subject of this Affidavit were not only obtained from the official website of the Judiciary, but, in addition, some pieces were obtained directly from the courts in which the relevant processes were located;
- He clarified that in the contestation and rejoinders presented by Mr. Hector Unda in the trial C 1912-2001 filed with the 14th Civil Court of Santiago (the Villar Lawsuit), it was explained that Mr. Hector Unda judicially processed the mining claims in his own name and not in the name of Compania Minera Nevada SpA.; and
- He clarified that there were certain rules of the Mining Code that empower the owner of a mining claim (and anyone) to perform certain works.
Nothing in these clarification leads to the Affidavit being false or inaccurate, because:
- It does not imply that the Affidavit is false in relation to the fact that the pieces of the judicial files subject of the Affidavit are available to the public on the Judiciary website.
Nor does it show that the verdict issued by the 2
nd Court of Letters of Vallenar in case C 719-2011 is not found on that website.For the sake of completeness, it is stated in the notarial certification submitted in Folio 107 that said verdict is available through the Judiciary website.
- It does not imply that the Affidavit in relation to the fact that Mr. Hector Unda opposed as a defense in the Villar Lawsuit the fact that he had stated to have processed the claims for the benefit of CMN is false. Mr. Hector Unda was a representative of CMN and this was expressly acknowledged in his Contestation. The clarification has the sense of explaining that, in the exercise of his mandate (to process the claims for the benefit of CMN), he appeared judicially in his own name and, therefore, he was later obligated to account to CMN and transfer the mining claims to it, its true owner.
- It does not imply that the Affidavit is false in relation to the fact that the mining claims, by themselves, do not confer any right of exploration or exploitation to the claimant. In the Complementary Statement, Mr. Felipe Oss Guzman explained:
- First, that, according to the Mining Code, anyone has the power to dig and sample on land owned by others and, therefore, this right does not emanate from a mining claim, but comes directly from the law.
- Second, that, according to Article 53 of the Mining Code, the registered owner of a mining claim may carry out “certain works” aimed at ensuring a possible and future exploration or exploitation of the mine. These “works” allow “to investigate the deposit only superficially and without this implying the exploitation of the mine (…) or other exploration work”.
That is, these are “minor mining tasks” that allow “to appreciate the quality and directions of the deposit”. For this reason, they limit themselves to allowing to “recognize the terrain, i.e. to know it physically; and “constitute” the claim, that is, to execute works “related to the survey of the future concession”. Nothing else.
As demonstrated, Mr. Felipe Ossa Guzman never acknowledged having committed falsehoods when signing his Affidavit. In the Complementary Statement, he only supplemented his statements, without altering the meaning and scope of what was stated in his Affidavit.
THEREFORE,
I request this Court: note the submitted document by the plaintiff’s submission of August 1, 2022 (Folio 102)