Uruguay passes bill eliminating prescription of crimes against humanity

Thursday, October 27th 2011 - 23:16 UTC

Full article 7 comments

The Uruguayan Congress passed early Thursday a law that eliminates the effects of the 1986 Amnesty Law (also known as Expiry Law), which protected police and military personnel from being prosecuted for human rights violations, and repeals a statute of limitations that would have prevented victims from filing criminal complaints as of 1 November. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules

GeoffWard2
The 1986 Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado (also Amnesty Law or Expiry Law) was a match to the Amnesty Law, which benefited all the urban guerrillas in jail or on the loose for blood crimes committed from 1964 onwards, those taking arms and using violence to bring down democratically elected governments.

This was known as a 'Matched Amnesty' supported over the years by two referenda of the whole nation.

The removal of this amnesty exposes both Right and Left to criminal domestic law up to and including murder.

As a result, the President himself finds himself at risk of such legal actions - with the possibility of ultimate sanction under the laws of the land.

No wonder he was against this reactionary measure!
Oct 28th, 2011 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Think
Welcome, Uruguay, to the select group of Countries doing the “right thing”.
Next to join Brazil....
Then Chile..
Ecuador, Perú and Colombia soon after..........
Ahhhh..... South-America.... Continent of Wonders.........
Oct 28th, 2011 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
I could be wrong, but the headline here talks about eliminating *prescription* of the Uruguaian crimes.

PROscription is the public identification and official condemnation of enemies of the state.
It is a “decree of condemnation to death or banishment” and is a heavily politically charged word, frequently used to refer to state-approved murder or persecution.
Proscription implies the elimination en masse of political rivals or personal enemies.
The term is frequently used in connection with violent revolutions, eg the political violence in Argentina against Peronists after Perón fled into exile.
Oct 28th, 2011 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Think
(3) GeoffWard

You already asked this question months ago……….:
”18 GeoffWard May 18th, 2011
Anybody know what they are talking about?
“Prescription”
I could understand if the actions were proscribed, but prescribed ????“

And I answered it…………:
”26 Think May 18th, 2011
......The word ”Prescripción” has various meanings in Spanish.
In this case it means: ”Expire”
That means that nobody will be prosecuted anymore for those alleged crimes.
The causes have expired.”

Alzheimers?

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/05/16/argentine-court-rules-prescription-of-abuses-and-tortures-against-malvinas-conscripts
Oct 28th, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
Yes, Think, and this article is written in the English language, not Spanish.
It is probable that the ambiguity is between the two English words.

Check out the definition of Proscription and see if it interests you.
Leaning about new things can delay the onset of Early Onset Altzheimer's - if it's not already too late.
Oct 28th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Think
The whole point of this article is that “Crimes against Humanity” are being declared imprescriptible in Uruguay…...............

Soon, they will be imprescriptible in all Latin-America, effectively ending the possibility for any criminal government to amnesty themselves..............

Why don’t you just Google “Prescription of crimes” and find out what it means, instead of focusing on the word “Proscription”?

Besides; not a hint of ambiguity between those two totally different latin words. Neither in Spanish nor in English.
Oct 29th, 2011 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
OK, I'm happy to accept either or both nuances; both work for me.
A common mistake in English texts is to use PREscription because the writer is unaware of the PROscription word.

Now, about presidential diktats that break with the desires of the people and the Senate
. . . . two referenda and one senate vote
- perhaps the people know more about humanity than the president, who was himself part of the never-ending process of action and counter-action.

When the people say “In the name of God, STOP this killing and counter-killing, imprisoning and counter-imprisoning” (Catholic country), and vote accordingly, should a president heed the people?

If yes, the people prevail - and the Bolivian road issue is right;
if no, the president of Uruguay has assumed the role of God and is not answerable to the people.
Oct 29th, 2011 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!