|
|
|
DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN URUGUAY INTRODUCTION
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights prepared its first
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay as a result of the
increasing number of serious denunciations of alleged violations of
human rights in that country since 1973. This decision was taken during
its Thirty-Ninth Session (October-November 1976). At that same session,
the Commission also decided to inform the Government of Uruguay of this
decision and to request that Government to allow a Special Committee of
the IACHR to conduct an in loco observation, to complete the data
already in the Commission’s hands. In response to the overtures made
by the Chairman of the IACHR, Dr. Andrés Aguilar, to obtain permission
from the Uruguayan authorities for a visit by the Special Commission,
the Government repeatedly answered no.
The Uruguayan Government’s refusal to permit the in loco
observation did not prevent the Commission from carrying out is
statutory duties. Thus, at its 41st session (May of 1977),
based on the Uruguayan Government’s reply to its request for
information in connection with individual cases, and on data received
from claimants and other sources, the Commission prepared the first
version of its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay, which
was transmitted to the Government of that country. The Government in
turn made observations on the Report. After considering those
observations, at its 43rd session the Commission approved the
final version of the Report on February 3, 1978. This Report was
presented to the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States.
The first Report of the Commission on the Situation of Human
Rights in Uruguay established the following conclusions and
recommendations:
Conclusions
1. After a careful and
objective analysis of the information at its disposal, the Commission
has reached the conclusion that a regime exists in Uruguay under which
rights, recognized in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties
of Man, have been violated.
2. The numerous
denunciations received from Uruguay and from any other sources which the
Commission considers to be reliable, and the Uruguayan Government’s
responses to the Commission’s request for information and
recommendations, enable the Commission to affirm that there have been
serious violations of the following human rights in Uruguay: the right
to life, to liberty, and to personal security; the right to freedom of
opinion; expression and dissemination of ideas; the right to a fair
trial; the right to due process of law; the right of assembly and
association, and the right to vote and to participate in government.
Recommendations
In light of these conclusions and other observations made in this
Report, and without prejudice to the action which may be appropriate
with regard to the individual cases to which reference has been made,
the Commission, in exercise of the powers granted by its Statute,
reiterates to the Government of Uruguay that:
1. It adopt the appropriate
measures to cooperate with the Commission in a more effective manner, by
providing it with the documents and information mentioned above, and any
other information that the Commission may request in the exercise of its
authority.
2. It order a thorough and
impartial investigation in order to determine those responsible for the
deaths of certain persons who died as a result of torture while being
held under detention or arrest, and that it duly inform the Commission
of the results of such investigations.
3. It establish the prison
or case visits made by the Supreme Court, which were suspended by Law Nº
14,493 of December 29, 1975.
4. It exempt, in accordance
with its Laws, minors of 18 years or younger from application of the
Prompt Security Measures and, should they be involved in an allegedly
illegal act or acts incompatible with public order, that it immediately
place them at the disposition of the competent Juvenile Court Judge and
confine them in quarters separate from those housing adult detainees.
5. It release, at the
earliest possible date, all detainees against whom no charges have been
filed, including those detained in application of the Prompt Security
Measures, or else immediately submit them to a fair trial and due
process of law, should there be legal grounds for such action.
6. It adopt the measures
necessary to prevent and curb any abuses committed against detainees.
At its eighth regular session, held in June 1978, the General
Assembly of the OAS adopted the following Resolution (AG/RES. 369
(VIII-O/78)).
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING SEEN the Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay (AG/doc.919/78) and
the Uruguayan Government’s observations on that Report (AG/doc.928/78
and AG/doc.928/78 add.1), and
CONSIDERING:
That the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as the result
of its analysis based on numerous denunciations received, affirms in
this Report that there have been serious violations of human rights;
That the protection and effective exercise of human rights is one
of the main purposes of the Organization of American States and the
observance of those rights is a source of good relations and solidarity
among the member states as a guarantee of respect for human life and the
dignity of man;
That the opinions expressed during the discussions on this
subject show the concern of the member states over the effective
exercise and protection of human rights in the hemisphere, and
That the principal purpose of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights is to promote the observance and protection of human rights
in all the member states,
RESOLVES:
1. To make an earnest appeal
to the Government of Uruguay to adopt and put into practice the
necessary methods and measures recommended by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights in its Report, in order effectively to
preserve and ensure the complete enjoyment of human rights in Uruguay.
2. To state its satisfaction
over the declared spirit of cooperation manifest at the eighth regular
session of this General Assembly and to ask the Government of Uruguay,
in the same spirit, to consider the possibility of inviting the
Commission to pay an in loco visit and to take appropriate
measures to provide the Commission with any cooperation that may be
necessary for it to carry out its work, to continue to provide the
Commission with such information as it may request in the discharge of
its duties, and at the same time to grant the appropriate guarantees to
those individuals and institutions that may provide information,
testimony, or evidence of any other kind to the Commission.
3. To thank the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for its Report on the
Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay, and to request it to continue to
observe the exercise of human rights in that country and to report on
the matter to the General Assembly at its next regular session.
Pursuant to this Resolution, the Commission has prepared this
Report, which does not pretend to be a thorough analysis of the
situation of human rights in Uruguay but merely a brief evaluation of
the steps taken by the Commission in connection with alleged violations
of human rights denounced to it during 1978.
The General Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay during 1978
According to information in the hands of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, the situation of human rights in Uruguay has
not changed significantly, although the number of denunciations received
concerning alleged violations during 1978 has dropped considerably in
comparison with previous years. However, during the period under
consideration, the Commission has received denunciations of 215 cases of
illegal arrests, a number of them involving incommunicado
detention for time periods longer than what the law allows, mistreatment
and torture of varying intensity, and deaths. When it transmitted the
pertinent parts of these denunciations to the Government of Uruguay, in
accordance with its Regulations, the Commission requested information in
connection with these violations.
Generally, the Government’s replies have been evasive, generic
in nature or incomplete; further, must of them are such that it is
impossible to determine whether the prescribed legal standards have been
enforced, and whether the individuals detained or held have been allowed
to effectively exercise the rights guaranteed in Uruguay’s
Constitution and the American Declaration.
In view of this situation, the IACHR has, in numerous
communications, requested information that it considers necessary to
continue its work. Some of the information needed has been:
a) the result of the
proceedings conducted in connection with the individual in question;
b) if a guilty verdict has
been handed down, a copy of the sentence; and
c) the individual’s
current status.
In almost all its responses, the Government of Uruguay uses the
Spanish term procesado to report the initiation of the legal
proceedings in accordance with the laws in force. However, on the basis
of the denunciations and testimony and even the replies from the
Government, it can be said that the judicial process initiated follows
its normal course up to the court’s final decision only in a
relatively small number of cases. The court’s decision is at times
arbitrarily objected to by the military authorities, as demonstrated in
the cases denounced to the Commission involving a number of individuals
who remain under arrest despite a judicial order to the contrary,
(Cases: 3699 of Carlos Hugo Peluffo Mazzari; 3100 of Washington de
Vargas). In most cases, the information provided by the Government ends
with notification of the proceedings or of referral of the case to the
Military Court.
In all these cases, in accordance with Articles 42 and 9 bis ©
of the Regulations of the Commission and of Resolution 369 of the
General Assembly of the OAS, the Commission has requested the Government
of Uruguay to provide specific supplementary information. To date, for
all practical purposes the Government has not replied to the
Commission’s request. According to statistics compiled by the
Secretariat of the Commission, there are a total of 80 cases, which
involve 587 alleged victims, where either the Government of Uruguay has
not responded to the request for information submitted by the Commission
or the replies provided are incomplete. For this reason, and because
many detainees continue in jail after many years—in some cases despite
a contradictory judicial decision, and also because of the great
difficulty or even impossibility of determining whether the remedies of
internal law have been exhausted and the authenticity of the facts
denounced and of the statements made by the Government,--Dr. Carlos A.
Dunshee de Abranches, in accordance with Resolutions 365 of the General
Assembly and pursuant to the decision taken by the Commission at its 613
Meeting (held during its 46th session on March 9, 1979) in a
letter to the Government of Uruguay dated April 16, 1979, transmitted
the operative part of the resolution quoted above and requested the
following information:
1. Means and measures the
Government of Uruguay has adopted to implement the recommendations
formulated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its
Report on the Situation of Human Rights, designed to preserve and ensure
effective and complete respect of human rights in that country.
2. The possibility of the
Uruguayan Government’s inviting the Commission to conduct an in
loco observation.
3. Any other information in
connection with the situation of human rights in Uruguay which, in the
opinion of Your Excellency’s Government, may be useful to the
Commission in preparing its Report for the next session of the General
Assembly.
By note dated May 21, 1979, Mr. Francisco Bustillo del Campo,
Ambassador of Uruguay to the OAS, replied to the Chairman of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Carlos A. Dunshee de
Abranches, as follows:
Mr. Chairman:
I have the honor of addressing you in order to transmit the
communication addressed to you by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of my
country, Don Adolfo Folle Martínez.
The communication transcribed below is a telex addressed to the
Commission, received today. It is being transmitted to you via de
Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the Organization of American States:
“… I have the honor to address you in connection with your
note of April 16 last, concerning Resolution 369, adopted by the General
Assembly of the OAS at its eighth regular session.
As for the information contained in paragraph 1 of your note, at
the appropriate time the observations that the Government considered
pertinent in this regard were sent to the General Assembly. Those
observations were as follows:
1. The Government of Uruguay
has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with the Commission, and
will continue to do so in the future. The observations made in the
present document are evidence of the government’s interest in this
respect, and the suggestions it makes for carrying out coordinate work
with the Commission will undoubtedly result in greater efficacy of the
common effort. We should make it clear that this broad unreserved
cooperation in no way contradicts the strict legal framework within
which relations between the IACHR and the member states of the
Organization are conducted, which as a matter of principle the
Government of Uruguay is not prepared to abandon.
2. There is no evidence that
any deaths by physical torture have occurred. Nor can it accept that any
possible deficiencies in information or in very rare cases, lack of
information can give rise to anything more than a formal presumption of
assigning responsibility. Rather, the Commission has detailed evidence
of the investigations carried out by the government, and of the
particular concern the authorities have shown ever since the outset of
anti-subversive activity to prevent and repress all abuses of authority.
The government will thus continue to cooperate with the Commission
within the limit set by the legal provisions that govern its operations.
3 The operation of the
system has been clearly explained: this includes visits to penal
establishments by the highest judicial authorities, commutation of
sentences and generally, everything that would tend to interrupt or
shorten sentences. Information was also provided on the suspension of
these visits during 1976, for which reason their reinstatement as
recommended by the Commission is totally irrelevant.
Due to the liberal and broad ideas, the government has even
consented to some requests such as those coming from certain foreign
ambassadors asking to interview citizens of other nations, with regard
to whom an interest legally protected under international law cannot be
invoked.
4. The functioning of the
Uruguay system has also been explained in detail, as have the broad
guarantees it affords minors. The recommendation makes sense, since the
most advanced practices for the treatment of minors have been used in
Uruguay for many years, and it has in no way been proven that there have
been any cases or practices contrary thereto.
5. The government has
limited detentions under the Prompt Security Measures in strict
compliance with the applicable constitutional provisions. It should be
pointed out that in the majority of cases, internment under the Prompt
Security Measures was followed by the alleged crime being brought before
the courts, their decisions being final.
The most salient characteristic of this legal institution, which
derives from the 1830 Constitution (Article 81) and which is set forth
in similar terms in the present Constitution (Article 178 Nº 17), is
that it differs from declarations of state of emergency, alarm, or state
of siege described in comparative law, by being unquestionably more
being. On the other hand, it is not within the power of the government
to renounce a constitutional system that protects domestic security and
order to deal with situations of public disturbances and guarantee the
peaceful coexistence of its people.
6. Positive law contains
numerous safeguards to prevent abuse of detainees, and the authorities
have shown repeated evidence of their continual vigilance to see that
such laws are strictly observed.
With regard to paragraph 2 of your note, the Uruguayan
Government’s position on that topic is clear and has been forwarded to
the Commission.
Given the continuing concern on the part of the Government
regarding the matter of human rights, the question posed is being
reanalyzed, although the possibility of conducting an in loco
observation continues to appear to be unjustified in light of
developments in the national situation.
With regard to paragraph 3 of your note, and confirming the
statement made in the preceding paragraph, we would like to bring the
following to your attention:
A) A series of visits by
important international agencies and foreign individuals who were given
an extensive introduction to the Uruguayan situation, beyond that
required by virtue of any international commitment on the matter.
Mention can be made of the mission conducted by the National
Academy of Science of the United States (March 1978), the visit by the
American Bar Association (April 1978) and by the Agency known as “Médicos
sin fronteras” (August 1978).
B) The decision to continue
to maintain ties with the International Red Cross, analyzing at this
time the means best suited of carrying out the plans for the visit,
which were also conducted in years past, during the most difficult times
of the crisis.
C) The release, during this
past year, of more than 500 individuals being prosecuted, which was a
decision adopted by the Uruguayan Judiciary.
D) In this connection, and
as testimony to the proper and efficient functioning of the courts, when
the appeal of a French citizen, Frank Conchon Oswald, was being
processed, the stages of his public trial were followed by a French
lawyer, Dr. Francois Cheron, who came to Uruguay expressly for that
purpose.
The statements of the above mentioned lawyer, who also visited
detention centers, are well known, since they had significant
international impact. They express a positive opinion of the present
situation of the judicial system and prisons in Uruguay, given by an
objective observer unaffected by the ideological and propagandist
distortion of the facts.
E) The continuing and
fruitful contacts with the ILO through the recent presentation of the
trade union bill and the positive results acknowledged in the
recommendations that the Committee on Trade Union Freedom of the ILO
brought before the council of the organization in March of this year and
which it accepted.
F) Strict compliance on the
part of the national authorities with the schedule that led to prompt
restoration of political rights, as contained in the plans made public
by the Uruguayan Government in August 1977; we feel it is sufficient to
underscore the number of occasions on which the government has publicly
reiterated the above mentioned goals.
G) The cordial and efficient
relations being maintained with the Intergovernmental Committee for
European Migration (ICEM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR).
H) The close and continuing
cooperation with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the
Covenants Committee, as well as the Committee on Conventions and
Recommendations of the Executive Board of UNESCO which is that branch of
UNESCO that deals with the subject of human rights.
I) Public discussion of such
important topics as the following, during the process of normalization
in our Republic:
The Statute of the political parties;
The lifting of certain proscriptions against political figures;
The lifting of limitations, which, as a defense measure against
internal and external acts of aggression committed against national
institutions, were imposed at that time upon the exercise of certain
guarantees and rights.
My Government seeks to maintain a fruitful dialogue with the
Commission, whose commitment to safeguard human rights in our hemisphere
it supports so that the Commission’s efforts do not become a sterile
confrontation with states.
To better implement the cooperation which our Government wishes
to extend to the Commission, the President would like to know that he
could do to help improve the system of information now in operation.
In the Commission’s opinion, the guarantees protecting the
fundamental rights and freedoms contained in domestic law, the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as
ratification of the International Covenants on Civil and Political
Rights, and on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights, should be applied
to everything done by the government which wishes to demonstrate its
respect for the Constitution and the international treaties and
conventions that form part of Uruguay’s legal system.
These statements are relevant in the analysis of the situation of
human rights in the Republic of Uruguay, and are significant for the
study of the government’s actions in applying measures which threaten
protection of individual guarantees, which are in open conflict with the
spirit of the international agreements and its own Constitution. RIGHT
TO LIFE, PERSONAL SAFETY AND HUMANE TREATMENT
In its First Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay,
the Commission presented a detailed analysis of the major legal
provisions enacted by the Government and of their consequences in terms
of the protection of human rights guaranteed both by the Constitution
and by the international conventions to which Uruguay is party.
With regard to the right to life, the security and integrity of
the individual, the Commission recommended in its Report to the
Government of Uruguay that “it order a thorough and impartial
investigation in order to determine those responsible for the deaths of
those individuals who died as a result of torture” and that “id
adopt the measures necessary to prevent and curb any abuses committed
against detainees.”
In its note of May 21, 1979, transcribed above, the Government of
Uruguay stated that “there is no evidence that any deaths by physical
torture have occurred” (paragraph 2 of that Note) and that Uruguayan
laws contain “numerous safeguards to prevent abuse of detainees, and
the authorities have shown repeated evidence of their continual
vigilance in order that such laws be strictly observed.”
This response indicates that the Uruguayan Government has not
taken and does not plan to take measures of any kind to carry out the
IACHR’s recommendations. The foregoing is confirmed by the content of
the denunciations received by the Commission, which indicate that
despite the existence of adequate laws in the area of protection of
human rights, the Government continues to act in violation of those
laws. RIGHT
TO PHYSICAL LIBERTY AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
The policy pursued by the Government of Uruguay under the terms
of the Institutional Acts, and of laws and decrees considered partially
unconstitutional or contrary to the principles of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, has apparently become less
severe during 1978. Arbitrary detentions still occur, but a greater
number of those detained are submitted to due process of law, at least
during the initial phases of that process. In a note of February 1978,
the Government informed the Commission of the final, provisional,
conditional, temporary or expected release of more than 500 people. Due
to a decision of the military authorities, however, others remain in
prison even after completing their sentences, in spite of a court
decision ordering their release.
The case of Washington de Vargas is an example of the above. The
denunciation is as follows:
CASE 3100
Washington de Vargas was detained on May 21, 1972, a
leftist student leader, 20 years of age, he was sentenced to two years
in prison for his political associations (illegal organization). Having
completed his sentence, his release papers were signed, but in spite of
this and the payment of 150.00 pesos for prison expenses, he has not
been released and has continued in detention for almost 4 years; that
is, his release papers have been signed but he has not been released. I
enclose testimony from former political prisoners who recount the
torture and inhumane treatment received by Washington during those 4
years.
During that time, evidence was fabricated as a basis for a second
trial. He was tried and sentenced to 6 years, this time for “Crimes
Against the Constitution.” A year before completion of the sentence, a
third case was being prepared against him. Washington, desperate after
being tortured, attempted suicide twice.
Domestic and international public opinion has been concerned with
the case, and his release was requested for May 21, 1978, date of the
completion of his sentence. On March 16, 1978, the Supreme Military
Court confirmed the length of his term, and assured his release
scheduled for May 21, 1978.
Washington was then brought before a “military officer serving
as judge,” Dr. Carmelo Betancour (Col.), who threatened to deliver him
to the OCOA if he did not sign the “statements” that had already
been drawn up for the third trial.
He refused, and a few days later entered the Military Hospital
with loss of reflexes, disfigured face, and his body covered with marks
inflicted by five officers under the command of officer Nieves who beat
him with iron chains.
Twenty days in a coma followed by a light recovery were
sufficient to cause a unit of the Armed Forces to have him “disappear
from the Military Hospital and appear” a month later, with the
statements signed.
In these “statements,” Washington is accused of having killed
2 police officers. There are 5 other charges.
Now the Supreme Military Court states that the 6-year sentence
does not end on May 21, 1978 but rather May 21, 1982, since the 4 years
that he was in prison with his release papers signed are not counted
towards the sentence.
According to information provided by the Government of Uruguay
and published in the press, there are 1,670 persons detained in
Uruguayan prisons. The figures published by a religious organization in
its report of June, 1979, indicate, however, that between 2,500 and
2,800 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are held in
military and civil detention centers in the country. Other private and
international organizations indicate between 4 and 6 thousand political
prisoners.
In connection with the decrees and laws whose spirit and
application are contrary to the fundamental principles of the American
Declaration, dealt with in the first Report of the Commission, the
latter does not at present have information as to whether that
legislation has been revoked or amended. COOPERATION
WITH THE SECURITY FORCES OF OTHER COUNTRIES
The Commission has received several denunciations of alleged
operations of a specialized police force in Uruguay in foreign
countries, apparently with the authorization and alleged participation
of the foreign authorities. According to these denunciations, the
purpose of these operations is to suppress any form or manifestation of
opposition to the military government of Uruguay and to eliminate any
person suspected of such opposition. These operations have been carried
out in Argentina (Case 2731 of Raúl Gambaro Nuñez mentioned above and
Henrique Rodríguez Larreta, Case 2155), in coordination with the Armed
Forces of Argentina, and in Brazil with the cooperation of the Social
and Political Police Force (DOPS).
The following cases illustrate the situation:
CASE 3902
Asdrúbal Moreira Cardoso, an Uruguayan citizen, was
arrested on the grounds of the security of the Uruguayan Government, in
Santana do Libramento, Brazil, and later moved to Uruguay; no
information has been provided as to his present whereabouts.
This act was carried out without charges being brought and
without his being brought before a court competent in matters of
extradition.
The Government of Uruguay has not replied to the Commission’s
request for information.
CASE 4529
Kidnapping in Brazil of 4 persons later taken to Montevideo.
On November 12, 1978, members of the coordinating Office for
Antisubversive Operations of the Uruguayan Armed Forces (OCOA), with the
aid and support of members of the Porto Alegre branch of the Social and
Political Police Force of Brazil (DOPS), without a court order or legal
motive, detained Universindo Rodríguez Díaz, Lilian Celiberti de
Casariego and their two children, Camilo and Francesca Casariego, ages 8
and 3, respectively, at their apartment in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and
then took the four Uruguayan citizens to agents of the Uruguayan
Government who forced them to return to Uruguay, where Rodríguez and
Mrs. Celiberti de Casariego were arrested, indicted and taken prisoner
by Uruguayan military authorities; their two children, after being kept incommunicado
for three days, were given to their maternal grandparents by order of an
Uruguayan judge.
The essential facts of this occurrence which constitute, prima
facie, a grave violation of the rights of the victims, all set forth in
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and guaranteed
in the American Convention on Human Rights, have been corroborated in
all material aspects by the Investigative Committee of the Brazilian Bar
Association, Office of Rio Grande do Sul, composed of Marcur Melzor,
Mariano Beck, Octavio Caruso Branchado de Rocha, and Omar Ferri, who
visited Montevideo, Uruguay, from January 2 to 6, 1979, and by the
results of an in loco mission in Porto Alegre, Brazil, from
December 6 to 12, 1978, carried out by Jean Louis Weil, lawyer to the
Court of Paris, France, for the two organizations presenting this
complaint and Le Mouvement International des Juristes Catholiques
(France), and by eyewitnesses to the detention of the abovementioned
victims.
On the basis of the material evidence gathered by these reliable
sources, the following sequence of events and other facts pertinent to
the detention, kidnapping and return of the four victims to Uruguay, can
be ascertained:
--That on November 12, 1978, Mr. Rodríguez Díaz and Mrs.
Celiberti de Casariego and their children, Camilo and Francesca, were
kidnapped and detained in their apartment at 521 Rua Botafogo, Porto
Alegre, Brazil, by Uruguayan agents acting in cooperation with members
of the Porto Alegre branch of the “DOPS” of Brazil.
--That on the night of November 12, 1978, Camilo and Francesca
were taken to DOPS headquarters in Porto Alegre, where they were placed
in the custody of members of the Uruguayan police. Later that same
night, they were taken from Porto Alegre, accompanied by Uruguayan and
Brazilian personnel, to the Uruguayan border, where they were
transferred to another automobile and handed over to the Uruguayan
personnel in Uruguayan territory. The two children were detained, incommunicado,
in various places, where there were other children, from November 12 to
25, 1978, at which time they “reappeared” in Montevideo and were
given to their material grandmother by court order.
--That Mr. Rodríguez Díaz and Mrs. Celiberti de Casariego were
detained by force in their apartment in Porto Alegre for approximately 5
days, November 12 to 17, prior to their forced return to Uruguay. During
this period of incommunicado detention, they were in the custody
of members of the DOPS and the OCOA of Uruguay.
--That at 11:00 a.m., on November 17, 1978, Luis Claudio Cunha,
editor of “VEJA” in Porto Alegre, received a telephone call from an
anonymous source in Sao Paulo, who told him that the four victims were
being detained in their apartment and would be kidnapped. In response to
this information, Cunha, accompanied by a photo journalist, Joao
Baptista Alcalco, went that same day at 4:00 p.m. to the Rodríguez
Casariego residence on Rua Botafogo to investigate. The two newspapermen
knocked on the door, which was opened by a woman who seemed to be
frightened, and who, speaking in Spanish, identified herself as Lilian
Celiberti de Casariego. Upon informing her that they had come to verify
that she was safe, two men dressed as civilians came from the apartment
and forced Cunha and Scalco at gunpoint to enter. For several hours,
Cunha and Scalco were interrogated at gunpoint by various people before
being allowed to leave. Cunha later identified one of the armed
interrogators as Orandir Portassi Lucas, also known as “Didi
Pedalada” a former soccer player and member of the Porto Alegre branch
of the DOPS.
--That at some point between November 18 and 24, 1978, Mr. Rodríguez
Díaz and Mrs. Celiberti were secretly returned to Uruguay.
--That on November 25, 1978, the Armed Forces of Uruguay issued a
communiqué, Nº 1,400. declaring that four victims had been captured on
November 12, 1978, crossing the border together, and that they had
“subversive material” in their possession.
--That on December 2, 1978, the Armed Forces of Uruguay issued a
second communiqué, Nº 1,401, which did not coincide with the first,
declaring that: (1) Lilian de Universindo, upon attempting to secretly
enter Uruguay as part of an invasion force, was captured by members of
the Uruguayan security police (after a skirmish during which shots were
fired), in a place between Bage-Acegua and the Uruguayan-Brazilian
border; (2) that the vehicle in which Universindo and Lilian were
traveling contained “subversive material,” and (3) that Camilo and
Francesca Casariego were simultaneously detained in a separate vehicle,
driven by an “unidentified person”, and containing a “hidden cache
of weapons.” Furthermore, the Armed Forces have refused to supply any
details concerning the manufacture, registration or license number of
the vehicles of persons traveling with Camilo and Francesca.
--That on December 25, 1978, the Armed Forces of Uruguay issued
another communiqué, indicating that Mrs. Celiberti de Casariego had
been tried and sentenced by the military courts for “aiding subversive
elements,” under the terms of the National Security Law of 1973.
Furthermore, the following information was gathered by the
Brazilian Bar Association during its visit to Montevideo and by other
reliable sources:
--That Lilian Celiberti and Universindo Rodríguez have been kept
incommunicado by the military authorities and have been seen by
no one since November 17, 1978.
--That the military authorities confiscated the identification
documents of Camilo and Francesca Casariego, making it impossible for
them to travel.
--That the maternal grandparents of the children are under
constant surveillance by personnel of the Uruguayan army, who have
pressured them not to “talk.”
--That Camilo, in interviews with Brazilian reporters and with
the investigation group of the Brazilian Bar Association, also from
Brazil, gave explicit details of his kidnapping and clandestine transfer
to Uruguay, together with his sister, on November 12, 1978. In this
connection, he confirmed the participation of the DOPS personnel and
that of Uruguayan agents in the joint operation. Specifically, Camilo
identified “Didi” Pedalada, as had Cunha, and Pedro Selig,
chief of the Security Division of DOPS in Rio Grande do Sul, as being
among those who detained his mother, sister, and Mr. Rodríguez Díaz at
their apartment in Porto Alegre on November 12, 1978, and
--That in spite of the clearly contradictory explanations given
in the communiqué issued by the Uruguayan Armed Forces concerning the
detention of the four victims, no official of the Uruguayan Government
consented to meet with the members of the investigative committee of the
Brazilian Bar Association, nor were members of that group allowed to see
Mr. Rodríguez Díaz or Mrs. Celiberti de Casariego.
The Commission has in its possession information and
denunciations of alleged violations by the Government of Uruguay during
1978 of the right to life and personal security that have not been
officially submitted or which do not fulfill the requirements of its
Regulations. These cases are pending receipt of further information so
that the Commission may process them officially. RIGHT
TO VOTE AND TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT
Political rights are not duly guaranteed. The right of Uruguayan
citizens to participate in decisions in the area of public affairs
(Article XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man)
were suspended by Institutional Act Nº 4 of September 1, 1976.
According to information published by the press, the military government
has announced that in 1981 presidential elections will be held for the
“future government of the Republic.” The country has been informed
also that there “will be a single candidate approved by the Armed
Forces.” The National Party, or Partido Blanco, commented on
that statement as follows: “No political solution is feasible without
the full and open participation of all political parties.” Two days
later the Directorship of the Party was disbanded by the military
government and replaced by a Committee appointed by the Government. CONCLUSIONS
The Commission, considering: a) the nature of the official
statements of the Government of Uruguay concerning the presidential
elections announced for 1981; b) the refusal of the Government to supply
important information requested by the IACHR, such as copies of autopsy
reports; c) the denunciations received by the Commission regarding
illegal arrests, arbitrary detention, kidnapping and disappearances
carried out by the Uruguayan police during the period covered in this
Report, both within and outside of the country, with the alleged
collaboration of police authorities in other countries; and d) the death
of persons detained as a result of mistreatment at the hands of the
police, has no other alternative but to conclude that the situation
which justified its First Report persists; as do the reasons for
obtaining the consent of the Government of Uruguay for an in loco
observation by a Special Committee of the IACHR.
Furthermore, the Commission observes that the number of
denunciations and violations of basic human rights has dropped, although
the Government has not acted to adopt appropriate measures to curb the
abuses committed in the past or to prevent those which may be committed
in the future by its agents in application of the Prompt Security
Measures and other legal provisions.
[ Table of Contents | Previous ] |
