MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Uruguay Senate annuls amnesty bill benefiting the military but triggers further controversy

Senator Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro voted partisan but later resigned to his bench

A closely divided Senate has passed legislation to overturn an amnesty for human rights crimes committed by the military and security forces during Uruguay's 1973-85 dictatorship, overruling voters who in two referendums upheld the law in 1989 and 2009. The decision triggered strong controversy in the Uruguayan political system.

The measure passed 16-15 late Tuesday after a 12-hour heated debate and now goes to the lower house for minor changes. The ruling coalition voted as a block while the opposition had an additional vote from a dissident government Senator.

Once the legislative process is ended the bill could become law by May 20 — the day Uruguay honours political prisoners who were kidnapped and killed during the military 12 year crackdown on leftists.

Once enacted, the legislation would allow prosecutions for crimes against humanity that were committed during Uruguay's “dirty war,” fulfilling a key goal of the leftist wing of the governing Broad Front coalition and complying with a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that found the amnesty unconstitutional on a case by case basis.

According to the text approved Uruguayan courts have to acknowledge as protected by the constitution all international human rights treaties signed by Uruguay that automatically annuls the 1986 amnesty law also known as the Expired Crimes bill.

The move has faced strong opposition from the country’s middle of the road voters, conservatives and retired members of the military, who say that the annulment would challenge a common political ground the nation has built through over a quarter-century of democracy.

“It’s clear now what kind of morality moves our enemies. It’s profoundly immoral, antidemocratic,” said retired Col. José Carlos Araújo, spokesman for the Liberty and Harmony forum of former military officials. “They don’t even respect the decisions of the people”.

The military amnesty law was passed in December 1986 and pardoned human rights violations during the 12-year dictatorship. The bill originally was approved as a matching law to a general amnesty for the urban guerrillas jailed or exiled since the movement begun in the sixties and voted February/March first 1985, when Uruguay recovered its democracy with the first freely elected government since 1971.

However a peace commission found in 2003 that 175 political activists were killed (most of them in Argentina) during Uruguay's 12-year dictatorship, including 26 in clandestine torture centres. Previously, only rights crimes considered to be beyond the military amnesty's scope — such as murders outside Uruguay — have been prosecuted, leading to prison terms for about a dozen officials.

The approval of the bill is not the end of the discussion or of the controversial issue that splits the electorate. Under Uruguayan law, the 1986 bill is a special law since it was twice upheld in referendums and constitutional law experts have dissenting views regarding if Parliament with a simple majority vote can overturn it.

Furthermore three Senators from the ruling coalition were openly against the review. Jorge Saravia crossed lines and voted against arguing he could not ignore voters’ verdict on two occasions. The ruling coalition has begun procedures to expel him and demands he return the bench.

Former Vice president and Senator Nin Novoa, was replaced by Oscar Lopez Goldaracena, who was questioned by the opposition for conflict of interests, since he has a majority of human rights claims and the approved bill clearly benefits him and his clients.

Finally Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro, an outstanding member of the ruling coalition who was against the initiative voted following party discipline but later resigned to the Senate.

Fernandez Huidobro is a very close friend and advisor of President Jose Mujica since they were both founders of the urban guerrilla movement of the sixties, ‘Tupamaros’ and as a columnist argued that the 1986 amnesty had to be respected because it was twice upheld by voters.

Furthermore it has been revealed that in private talks with former ‘enemies’, military officers involved in the dirty war, Fernandez Huidobro and even then Senator Jose Mujica said it was time to look ahead and accept the legal framework that helped Uruguay overcome the 12 years of dictatorship.

Nevertheless President Mujica has advanced he would respect Parliament and not veto the bill when it is finally approved. This however will not impede a case by case confirmation that the new bill is unconstitutional, which is a long and costly process for plaintiffs.

The decision could also force a review of cases involving former military officers and officials sentenced for human rights violations under the current legislation and who are currently jailed for life.

President Mujica was elected with a 53% majority in the November 2009 run-off, the same election that saw 52% of voters cast ballots to uphold the military amnesty. In the previous referendum two decades earlier, 55% favoured amnesty.

Abuses were committed by both sides during the “dirty war”. The Tupamaros uprising that began in 1963 against democratically elected governments resulted in dozens of killings, kidnappings, robberies, arsons and other attacks before they were defeated a decade later, many of them jailed for years until the return of democracy.

All three opposition parties, the centre-right National Party, the Colorados and the Independent Party argued against overturning the amnesty. Colorado Sen. Ope Pasquet disputed the governing coalition's argument that Uruguayans voted in fear to uphold the amnesties.

“How would they be fearful in complete democracy? To think that they voted in fear is an insult to the people,” he said during the debate.

The Montevideo yellow press quoting radicals and extremists from the left and the right claims that the two ruling coalition Senators acted as they did ‘because they have, or their close relatives, pending court cases’.