This Sunday Uruguayans have to decide on whether to overturn an existing amnesty law that protects military and police personnel accused of alleged human rights violations during the 1973-1985 military junta. The danger however of such a decision could ultimately lead to new dictators or perpetrators refusing to give up power.

by Hermione Gee & Karl Dowling

The referendum in the Latin American country comes on the heels of this week's ruling by the Supreme Court that an amnesty protecting those responsible for the torture and murder of a young Communist activist in 1974 was unconstitutional. The ruling opens the door to the possibility of similar rulings regarding the other 231 people who disappeared under the junta's rule.

Peaceful transition

Amnesty laws are retroactive measures used by countries that have faced internal conflict. The amnesty is offered to perpetrators from former regimes or opposition groups in return for peaceful political transition. Post-apartheid South Africa, for example, chose to absolve not prosecute members of the apartheid government, in the hope of ensuring a non-violent move to democracy.

However, says William Schabas, amnesty laws are not always used as an incentive for peace. Mr Schabas directs the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway.

"We have examples of amnesty laws of a more negative nature - of which I think the classic example is the amnesty Chilean dictator Pinochet gave himself. That was really nothing more than a retirement present. It wasn't necessary to ensure a peaceful transition, to avoid conflict, and it didn't contribute to reconciliation either in the country. So what we have is a whole range of amnesty measures that have been undertaken by countries depending on the circumstances."

The right to justice

Many human rights activists oppose amnesty laws on the grounds that they deprive victims of their right to justice. They argue that amnesty measures thereby violate international humanitarian law. It's a flawed argument, says William Schabas:

"The rights of victims to have justice done has to be balanced against other human rights. This is always a complex exercise in the field of human rights - trying to balance rights of individuals and groups against the rights of other groups. In the case of an amnesty, often what we are talking about is part of a peace package. And there is a very strong argument that the majority or the people of a country are also victims of war or of conflict, and they have a right to have that conflict ended."

Removing amnesty

Ivahanna Larrosa works with Amnesty International in Uruguay. She says it's time the country confronted its past.

"There is a generation of young people who don't have the information about the past. There are politicians who say we don't need to see the past. But we say we can't see the present and the future not knowing about our past."

If the people of Uruguay decide to revoke the amnesty law on Sunday, William Schabas warns that that this will "remove the idea of an amnesty from the toolbox" in the event that conflict returns. But, he adds, people's views evolve when the peace lasts and the weight they accord to the benefits of an amnesty change over time.
 

(Photo: Mentat Kibernes at flickr under Creative Commons)