| SPECIAL
REPORTS: ARGENTINA |
|
|
|
Congress
Debates Repeal of Amnesty Laws
Marcela
Valente
BUENOS AIRES, (IPS) - Thousands of
demonstrators from more than 100 human
rights groups and social organisations
gathered outside the Argentine
Congress Tuesday to urge it to revoke
amnesty laws that let human rights
violators off the hook after the
1976-1983 dictatorship.
The Full Stop Law and the Law of Due
Obedience were enacted by parliament
in 1986 and 1987, respectively, under
pressure from the military.
The aim of Congress, which is debating
whether to repeal the laws and is
expected to do so, is to send a strong
message to the Supreme Court, which
will soon decide either to uphold or
overturn verdicts handed down by
judges in courts of first and second
instance, who declared the two laws
unconstitutional.
President Néstor Kirchner signed a
decree late Monday stating that
Argentina adheres to the International
Convention on the Non- Applicability
of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes
and Crimes Against Humanity, adopted
by the United Nations in 1968.
Prominent local activist Estela
Carloto, the head of the rights group
Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo,
said Tuesday that the president's
decision merited a celebration.
She added that she was pleased that
the president was ''cooperating'' in
persuading the Court to declare the
amnesty laws unconstitutional. ''I
would venture to say that things are
changing in this country,'' said
Carloto.
According to the registry drawn up by
the National Commission on the
Disappearance of Persons, which was
created in 1984, based on reports of
abductions, torture and forced
disappearances committed by the
dictatorship, some 2,500 members of
the military were let off the hook by
the two amnesty laws.
But activists say many more were
involved in the rights abuses against
dissidents and leftists.
One of the best-known cases of former
military officers who benefited by the
laws was former navy captain Alfredo
Astiz, who has been sentenced in
absentia by courts in France and
Sweden, and is also wanted by courts
in Spain.
Although Astiz was accused of the 1977
murders of Swedish-born teenager
Dagmar Hagelin and French nuns Alice
Domon and Leonide Dusquet, the Law of
Due Obedience kept him from going to
prison, on the argument that he was
merely following orders.
Leftist Deputy Patricia Walsh, who
presented the bill aimed at
overturning the two controversial laws
in February 2002, told IPS that she
was somewhat amazed at the high
profile that the debate had taken on
in recent weeks.
Late last month the centre-left
Kirchner, who took office in May,
struck down a decree issued by former
president Fernando de la Rúa
(1999-2001) which banned the
extradition of Argentine nationals
wanted by courts abroad for crimes
against humanity.
That led to the revival of requests by
Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón, who
wants to try 45 Argentine military
officers and one civilian in Madrid.
Garzón is best-known for his attempt
to secure the extradition of former
Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet
(1973-1990).
Walsh, the only member of the United
Left party in the 257-seat Chamber of
Deputies, said her bill was basically
aimed at bearing witness to
Argentina's seven-year dirty war, and
that she and the other 14 lawmakers
who sponsored it never really believed
it would be debated with the current
intensity in the political, legal and
social arenas.
The lawmaker said the extradition
requests had rekindled the debate on
whether or not the accused should
stand trial, in Argentina or abroad.
''If they are extradited, that would
demonstrate that impunity reigns in
Argentina,'' argued Walsh, who said
she would prefer that the trials take
place in the country where the abuses
were committed.
The legislator, whose father, writer
Rodolfo Walsh, was a victim of the
dictatorship, said support for
overturning the amnesty laws had grown
since her bill was introduced. She
also described recent statements by
Kirchner in favour of annulling the
two laws as ''positive signs.''
Kirchner has categorically stated that
he was never in favour of the amnesty
laws. He also said he believes that
military human rights abusers should
be tried in Argentina.
But he warned that in the case of
continued obstacles to prosecuting
them at home, he would push for their
extradition.
The amnesty laws were enacted to put
an end to legal action against those
directly accused of kidnapping,
torture and murder, after the members
of the dictatorship's ruling junta
were found guilty by the courts of
planning and ordering the forced
disappearance of at least 11,000 --
and as many as 30,000, according to
human rights groups -- people.
The Full Stop Law, sponsored in 1986
by then-president Raúl Alfonsín
(1983-1989), set a 60-day deadline for
criminal complaints to be filed and
for judges to hear the testimony of
defendants and witnesses in human
rights cases.
After the law was passed, several
judges hurriedly began to summon
members of the military to testify. A
group of soldiers reacted in anger,
staging an armed uprising in 1987.
Although the revolt was put down, in
its wake the Law of Due Obedience was
introduced by the executive branch and
passed by Congress, thus ending the
prosecutions of all human rights
violators who were ''following
orders.''
A number of legislators, including
members of the ruling party, admitted
that they voted for the two laws with
a sense of repugnance. Two weeks after
the Law of Due Obedience was passed,
it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
In 1990, then-president Carlos Menem
(1989-1999) issued pardons for the
former commanders who had been found
guilty of crimes against humanity and
imprisoned during the first few years
of the transition to democracy.
The pardons drew howls of outrage from
human rights groups at home and
abroad.
Since then, the families of the
disappeared have been chipping away at
the prevailing impunity, by means of
legal loopholes and gaps in the
amnesty laws.
Trials began to be held with the aim
of finding out the truth about what
happened to the disappeared, and to
locate their remains, even if the
legal action would not lead to
convictions or sentences.
In 1998, a group of legislators
attempted to get the amnesty laws
annulled. However, the resulting
decision to revoke the laws was not
retroactive in character, but only
meant they could not be invoked for
cases that might arise in the future.
Military officers then began to be
brought to trial for the kidnapping of
the infant children of the victims of
forced disappearance. Many of the
babies born in captivity to political
prisoners or abducted along with them
were stolen and adopted by families
with ties to the military.
The trials were made possible when
courts accepted the argument set forth
by activists that the existence of a
systematic plan to kidnap and change
the identities of the babies was not
proven during the trials of the
members of the ruling junta, which
meant the pardons that let them out of
prison did not cover that crime.
The former commanders began to be
summoned to testify in the
baby-kidnapping trials, and most of
them ended up under house arrest on
charges of stealing children.
In the meantime, judges in Spain,
Italy, Sweden, France and Germany
began to file requests for the
extradition of military personnel
accused of crimes against humanity, to
which no statute of limitations or
amnesty can apply, according to
international treaties.
On Tuesday, Congress itself, which
passed the amnesty laws in the
mid-1980s, began to debate how to
overturn them.
But lawyer Rodolfo Yansón with the
Argentine League for the Rights of Man
pointed out to IPS that the repeal of
the laws, considered a sure thing,
will not automatically lead to a
reopening of the trials.
First of all, the Supreme Court must
decide whether or not the amnesty laws
are constitutional, he noted, adding
that it will be more inclined to
declare them unconstitutional if
Congress annuls them, which would
amount to an admission that it was
erroneous to enact them in the first
place.
Once human rights cases are reopened,
defendants will face charges in
lengthy judicial processes. ''It will
be an arduous, tough path,'' cautioned
Yansón, who represents the families
of victims of forced disappearance.
Another human rights lawyer, Carolina
Vartsky with the Centre for Legal and
Social Studies, a local rights group,
agreed that the current debate in
parliament will send ''a political
message'' to the Supreme Court, but
that a Court decision to declare the
laws unconstitutional would be just
the start of lengthy prosecutions.
''It is never a good time to bring to
justice people accused of crimes
against humanity, because extremely
painful situations are relived,'' said
Walsh. ''But if we want the wounds to
heal, we must put an end to this
impunity.''
Email
this page to a Friend
|
|
|
|
|
