|
1.
INTRODUCTION
At its ninth regular session, the General Assembly of the
Organization instructed the Commission to continue to monitor the
exercise of human rights in Uruguay and to present a report on the
development of the situation to the General Assembly at its next regular
session.
Likewise, in Resolution 443, adopted at that same session, the
General Assembly again appealed to the Government of Uruguay for
comprehensive implementation of the measures recommended by the
Commission in its previous report; it again requested the Government of
Uruguay to consider the possibility of inviting the Commission to visit
the country and it took note of the Uruguayan Government’s
announcement of general elections, scheduled for 1981, taking into
account the conclusions and observations set forth in the Annual Report
of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
In accordance with the General Assembly’s mandate, this report
addresses events that have occurred in Uruguay since 1979. However, so
that this report may be up-to-date and reflect the current situation in
Uruguay, certain important events that occurred during the first months
of 1980 are considered. 2.
THE GENERAL SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN URUGUAY
According to information the Commission has in its hands, the
situation of human rights in Uruguay has not undergone any basic change
as regards the state’s structure during the period covered in this
report: this can be interpreted to mean that the government organization
in that country has not introduced any significant changes in the
administrative and monitoring machinery that has been set up gradually
since 1973, and under which the rigid system of state control against
which denunciations of violations of human rights have been filed, as
appear in the Commission’s earlier reports, has remained intact.
However, the Commission acknowledges that at this time, the
number of denunciations that have been received against Uruguay for
violations of human rights has dropped; it has received with
satisfaction reports to the effect that the number of political
prisoners has decreased when compared with the number of individuals
detained in previous years; it is also pleased that there have been
fewer detentions and kidnappings during this period and that the number
of deaths as a consequence of clashes has dropped considerably.
The Commission takes note of the public statements made by the
President of the Supreme Military Tribunal to the effect that proceeding
against political detainees have been expedited and regularized and the
fact that the number of detainees not yet brought to trial has dropped
and that proceedings against a significant percentage of detainees have
been concluded. 3.
CHANGES IN THE POLITICAL AND NORMATIVE SYSTEM
On March 28, 1980, the Uruguayan Government passed a law that
gives the military judicial authority exclusive legal competence to
grant the benefits of “early release,” “parole” and
“pardon,” which until that time had been the exclusive competence of
the President of the Republic and the civil judicial authority. It also
authorizes the Supreme Military Tribunal to review sentences with
authority of res judicata, thereby making it possible to revoke
accumulative sentences for security measures.
Certain organs of the Uruguayan press portrayed that law as being
one of amnesty for foreigners. However, insofar as it concerns the
possibility of revoking sentences, that assessment refers exclusively to
a Brazilian citizen, doña Flavia Schilling Wesp, who to date is the
only individual who has benefited from that law due to the limitations
established under Uruguayan law for cases of review of sentences. As for
the powers to release political prisoners, the law in question does not
contribute anything new to Uruguayan legislation since that power, now
transferred to the military judges, existed beforehand as a power of the
Chief of State and of the Court of Civil Justice, although it was not
used.
As it was explained in the Commission’s previous report, the
Uruguayan Government had announced a political plan that provided for
elections in 1981 on the basis of a single candidate who was to have the
approval of the Armed Forces. The political “chronogram” announced
also made reference to drafting of a new constitution, scheduled to
appear in 1980 and to be submitted to a national plebiscite for
approval.
Following that political chronogram, on May 15, 1980, the
Uruguayan citizenry was given the text of the note the President of the
Republic sent to the President of the Council of State, Dr. Hamlet
Reyes, in which he transmitted to that body the preliminary draft text
of the Constitution which the Government of Uruguay was submitting to
the Council of State, so that the latter would proceed to do the
following: “… c) prepare the preliminary draft text of a
Constitution, which will be submitted to the citizenry for ratification
in accordance with the principles that follow from the
previously-established goals, the grounds of the Institutional Act and
the bases to be approved.”1
The Preliminary Draft that the Executive Power submitted to the
Council of State for consideration contains, in the very first line, a
condition that brands it and places its democratic nature in question.
In effect, the text proposed as a new draft constitution bears the
following heading: “PRINCIPLES, BASES AND CONDITIONS OF THE NEW
CONSTITUTION.”
The draft of the new constitution, which according to statements
published in the press was drawn up by the Committee on Political
Affairs in the Armed Forces, establishes severe limitations that could
institutionally restrict life and democratic political activity in
Uruguay.
According to the draft text, political activities would be
subject to very serious limitations, as said earlier. For example, with
respect to political parties, it states the following:
It shall be prohibited to establish political parties that by
their ideology, principles or name, indicate a tie or connection with
foregoing political parties, institutions and organizations, or with
other states and that are composed of individuals who have been members
of social or political organizations that, through violence or
propaganda that incites to violence, seek to destroy the foundation of
the nation, or of those who have been members of associations declared
to be illegal by the competent authority.
As can be noted, this provision permanently prohibits those who
have been members of “associations declared to be illegal” from
becoming members of political parties. It also carries the prohibition
against ties with foreign institutions to extraordinary extremes. The
traditional norm in Uruguay was to prohibit the formation of political
organizations answerable to the authority of foreign institutions.
However, the “principles and goals” prohibit the formation of
political parties that have “a tie or connection” with institutions
abroad and their “ideology, principles or name” are sufficient to
show that “tie or connection.” Thus, the mere existence of
organizations in other countries with a similar ideology or name will be
an impediment to the formation of a political party in Uruguay. It is
obvious that restrictions of this kind are irreconcilable with the
guarantee of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.2
Exercise of political rights by individuals is subject to still
other types of restrictions. At present, there are various classes of
individuals accused of no crime whatever who are deprived of their
political rights, in some cases even the right to vote, by virtue of
Institutional Act Nº 4. The “principles and goals” contain no
direct reference to this situation. Hence, the provisions of chapter III
shall apply: “It shall be established that all juridical and
administrative acts issued between 1973 and the date of the entry into
force of the new constitution are ratified. Those standards that are not
in conflict with the provisions of the constitution shall remain in
force.” Since the “abrogation of political rights” provided for in
Institutional Act Nº 4 was decreed for 15 years, many thousands of
citizens will continue to be deprived of all political rights for the
sole reason of having engaged in certain political activities.
A number of standards included in the “principles and goals”
constitute serious limitations on the right to participate in
government.3
This is particularly true because of the prerogatives reserved for
institutions and organs whose power would limit the authority of the
elective institutions. Thus, the Armed Forces must be represented in the
Executive Power with respect to the most vital affairs.4
Also, “political control” is structured in such a way as to
perpetuate the authority of those who now exercise political control,
whose representatives will retain broad powers that will enable them to
remove elected officials.5
The very process followed for approval of the new constitution
and for election of new officials must be regarded as injurious to the
right to participate in government functions and the right to vote. Only
the current organs of government participated in the drafting of the new
constitution. Political parties may not take part in the discussions or
act openly to assume a free and public stance before the plebiscite. The
option that the citizenry will be given will be limited to approval or
rejection of a single text so drafted. Public statements by members of
the current government have appeared in the press to the effect that
rejection of the draft in the plebiscite would be interpreted to mean a
preference for preserving the current regime, in other words the 1966
Constitution and the amendments that resulted from the “Institutional
Acts;” following this criterion, the option being offered is limited
to two different formulations of the current orientation, with no
opportunity to express disapproval of it.
The “principles and goals” also contain numerous provisions
of interest from the standpoint of protection of human rights. In
general terms, they are cause for serious concern because this
opportunity, an extraordinary propitious one for reestablishing the
rights now limited, seems to be viewed instead as a means to affirm
those same restrictions on rights.
The chapter entitled “rights” states that the rights,
obligations and guarantees recognized in the 1966 Constitution are being
maintained. However, this does not preclude the particular standards
stipulated on numerous subjects, in which the scope with which the
guarantee of rights is formulated is much narrower than in the 1966
Constitution. This is the case with the standards on protection of the
home, the right to form unions and strike, the right to regulation of
labor associations and freedom of information (in these provisions the
prohibition against night time search and seizure and prior censorship,
which was part of the 1966 Constitution, is eliminated; on the other
hand, provisions are added prohibiting certain categories of individuals
from unionization, prohibiting civil servants from going on strike, and
so on).
The system of “prompt security measures,” application of
which has given rise to certain criticism, is modified in two ways. On
the one hand, this system would no longer include certain theoretical
guarantees contained in the 1966 Constitution (the option of detainees
to leave the country, the right of the legislative organ to lift those
measures at any time). On the other hand, the prompt security measures
would become only one of three new categories of “states of
emergency,” and specifically would be the least severe. Alongside the
prompt security measures, the new Constitution would establish the
“state of subversion,” which would be more intensive in scope,6
and, as a third category, the “state of war.” The discretionary
powers that this system reserves for the Government and the Armed Forces
would be much broader than under the constitutional system now in force,
even taking the Institutional Acts into consideration. From this
standpoint, the draft text clearly strengthens the repressive machinery
and encourages less responsibility in its application.
In the area of punishment for criminal violations, the competence
of the military courts is upheld. It is expressly stated that the civil
courts are subject to the authority of the military judges. The
jurisdiction of the military judges is defined in extremely broad and
vague terms.7
Certain elements of the autonomy of the Judicial Power, which had
been eliminated by Institutional Act Nº 8, are reestablished; but
administrative control of civil justice is maintained and is clearly
greater than it was under the 1966 Constitution.8 4.
THE RIGHT TO LIFE
During the period covered in this report, the Commission received
a new denunciation concerning the right to life. According to this
denunciation, in Montevideo, on May 1, 1980, the Joint Forces allegedly
made a number of violent attacks upon persons in the streets to prevent
any demonstration to commemorate Workers’ Day, traditionally
celebrated on that date as an official holiday, but which has not been
celebrated since 1974. In one of those episodes, the Joint Forces
allegedly opened fire on a group of workers at the entrance to their
factory and wounded a number of them and killed Emilio Reyes, 22 years
of age. Later, the event was allegedly the subject of an official
communiqué, which acknowledged the death of the victim and explained it
through an account that the claimant considers to be false and
implausible.
Further, the Commission has not received from the Government of
Uruguay any additional information or clarification with respect to the
cases of death during confinement that the Commission had studied,
concluding that the apprehending authorities seemed to be responsible.
The Commission’s earlier reports give details on such cases and on
others where the Commission did not consider the clarification received
from the Government to explain those cases to be sufficient. There is no
information, investigatory measures or punishments with respect to those
responsible for the attacks on the right to life. 5.
THE RIGHT TO PHYSICAL LIBERTY AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
There were no significant changes in the situation described in
the Commission’s earlier reports. Certain Uruguayan authorities, in
particular the President of the Supreme Military Tribunal, have made, as
has been said, public declarations to the effect that the proceedings
being filed against detainees have been expedited and regularized, and
made special mention of the drop in the number of detainees not yet
brought to trial and a percentage increase in the number of detainees
whose trials have been concluded.
These facts represent a more thorough or more rapid application
of the military penal process, but do not alter the characteristics of
that process. In its earlier reports, the Commission had occasion to
outline the denounced irregularity in that procedure and the extent to
which those irregularities should be considered to be either expressly
or tacitly confirmed by the government’s report. Under such
circumstances, in the Commission’s opinion, more expeditious
application cannot be viewed as an improvement in the situation, if the
system of guarantees of that process is not corrected. In some sense,
the conclusion of those proceedings rather represents an exacerbation of
the situation in that it establishes res judicata against those
brought to trial under irregular circumstances and upholds sentences
that were imposed without the proper guarantees.
The flaws in the Uruguayan criminal procedure have been studied
and criticized by other international agencies. The Committee on Human
Rights established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, in three decisions issued in 1979 and 1980 on cases examined by
virtue of the Optional Protocol of the Covenant, has had an opportunity
to study the proceedings against six individuals in Uruguay. These
decisions have special weight because they are the opinions of an
impartial organ governed by very strict procedural standards, and whose
conduct has been praised repeatedly in resolutions of the United Nations
General Assembly because of its reliability.9
In its decision of August 15, 1979 (document A/34/40, Appendix VII), the
Committee rendered its decision on the cases of three individuals. As
for the guarantees of the trial (the decision also refers to other
violations of rights), the resolution states that all of these
individuals “were tried under circumstances in which they were
deprived of the due guarantees of an impartial trial.” In a decision
of October 26, 1979,10
which concerned an individual who had been detained without being
brought to trial, the Committee stated that: “the individual had been
deprived of an effective recourse to challenge his arrest and
detention.” Finally, in the decision of April 3, 1980,11
the Committee stated that the two victims “were tried under
circumstances in which the legal provisions notwithstanding, they did
not have the proper guarantees of a fair trial.”
These conclusions of the Committee on Human Rights only concern
the respective individual cases; however, an examination of the facts
that were proven in those cases shows that they involve situations
typical of and similar to cases of detention and application of military
justice in Uruguay in general. The defects of the military trial that
are listed in the decisions of August 1979 and April 1980 are not unique
to those cases, but rather—in the light of the information the
Commission has and which the Uruguayan Government expressly acknowledges
or has never denied—are typical of the current application of that
type of proceeding.
In the ILO as well there have been criticisms of the procedure
applied to detainees, in relation to the situation of unionists who had
been tried.12 6.
THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
One of the most recent events brought to the Commission’s
attention, which gives a picture of the internal conditions in Uruguay,
concerns the right of assembly.
In effect, on January 25, 1980, the Montevideo Police issued the
following “Official Communiqué Nº 2” to the citizenry.
Deadline for Requests to Hold Public Events
The Office of the Chief of Police of Montevideo, reiterating
earlier communiqués and in accordance with the provisions in force,
reminds those who are interested in holding public events, assemblies
(of social, cultural, professional, sports, and cooperative
institutions, businesses, mutual medical aid societies, etc., even in
certain cases of religious organization, when they go beyond the mere
exercise of worship on their own premises), elections, benefits,
conferences, cultural and artistic events, tributes (to living or dead
persons, to be held at sites, cemeteries, monuments, etc.), processions,
including sports parades, scientific, technical and other congresses,
that they must obtain the necessary authorization from these
Headquarters at least (10) days prior to the holding of the event.
It is advised that requests not presented by the specified
deadline shall not be considered.
As for family gatherings such as dances or other festivities,
which, by their nature, bring together an unusual number of individuals,
only the corresponding precinct must be advised.
The text of the above communication is addressed, as can be seen,
to social and cultural entities, to groups of professionals, to
sportsmen, to religious organizations and to Uruguayan families; thus
their right to assemble and their freedom of association are subject to
new restrictions.
Apart from the communiqué, which is only one law designed to
regulate the activities and conduct of the Uruguayan populace, there is
other evidence that attests to the persistence in the extreme
restrictions to which the rights of individuals in Uruguay are subject.
The Commission cites below the events that occurred at the end of 1979
in connection with a social meeting, which had connotations of an
unforeseen political result: on the occasion of his birthday, a banquet
was given in honor of Mr. Carlos Julio Pereyra; in the enthusiasm of the
moment, the guest of honor allegedly improvised a speech whose content,
according to Uruguayan authorities, had been tinged with political
implications.
As a consequence of this event, certain measures were taken
against those who attended the banquet, such as the measure that led to
the denunciation corresponding to Case 7369, the evidence of which is a
resolution of the Government of Uruguay, issued jointly by ministers
from various branches and bearing the signature of the President of the
Republic.
The Resolution states the following:
Ministry of the Interior
Ministry of National Defense
Ministry of Labor and Social Security
Ministry of Justice
Montevideo, March 5, 1980
HAVING SEEN: The background information presented by the Chief of
Police of Montevideo in connection with the meeting held by a political
group;
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
WHEREAS: I) On that occasion a group of citizens met to hold, for
political purposes, a tribute to Mr. Carlos Julio Pereyra on the
occasion of his birthday; the meeting gave the guest of honor an
opportunity to give a clearly political speech in which he made
statements in opposition to the current system of prohibiting political
activities. The participants included Mr. Carlos Enrique Rodríguez
Labruna, Alember Vaz Vaz, Alvaro Vicente Regulo Lapido Días and Mr.
Guillermo García Costa, who were affected by the system of political
disqualification in question.
II) The aforementioned
individuals now receive pensions for having held political office
……………………………………………………………………………………
CONSIDERING: that the events cited above having been proven by
the competent authorities, the Executive Power must apply the laws that
penalize violations of the system of political disqualification in
force, in order to preserve its legal effect and to prevent those
covered under its provisions from repeating their offense, so as to help
preserve the peace and security the Republic now
enjoys……………………………………………
IN VIEW OF: The provisions of articles 3 and 6, paragraph b, of
Institutional Act Nº 4 of September 1,
1976…………………………………………… THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC RESOLVES:
1) To withdraw up to one
third of the pensions being received by the following individuals, as of
the date of notification of this resolution, for a period of one year:
Carlos Enrique RODRÍGUEZ LABRUNA (C.C. Series ALA Nº 5566)
Alember VAZ VAZ (C.C. Series GAB Nº 4422)
Alvaro Vicente Régulo LAPIDO DIAZ (C.C. Series BMA Nº 10,434)
Guillermo Francisco GARCIA COSTA (C.C. Series RAB Nº 14,050)
2)
That the Electoral Court shall be informed so that it may record
the present
resolution..........................................................
3) That the resolution be
directed to the General Bureau of Social Security so that it may serve
notice upon the individuals listed under operative paragraph 1 and
deduct the necessary amount…………………… 4)
That so done, let it be
filed……………………………………………………………
Signature of the President
Signatures of the Ministers
Moreover, with evident severity completely out of proportion,
another denunciation on record with the Commission shows that merely for
attending the same birthday banquet, the following individuals were
penalized by being removed from their posts: Dr. Héctor Clavijo, an
official of the legislative House; Walter Hugo Palombo, Secretary
General of the National Port Administration; Dr. Fernando Oliú, Chief
of the Chamber of Lawyers of the Bank of the Republic; Dr. Diamantino
Amaral, judge and member of the Bar and an official of the Judicial
Power; Dr. Mario Jaso Anchorena, an official of the State Sanitation
Works; Mr. León Morelli, an official of the Social Security Bank, and
Mr. Washington Legaspi, an official of the Social Security Bank.
Another significant event that, again, is directly related to the
restrictions imposed on the right of assembly and freedom of association
and, at the same time, on the right to liberty and personal security and
integrity, is the subsequent mass arrest of all those who attended the
event, who were held prisoners and subjected to rigorous interrogation.
The Number of detainees in connection with the birthday banquet in
question was more than 100. 7.
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION
The policy followed by the Government of Uruguay, under the
authority of the provisions contained in the Institutional Acts and the
legal provisions issued under the security system set up by the Armed
Forces, has not changed insofar as freedom of expression is concerned.
On the contrary, a policy of strict control has been maintained;
individuals who express divergent opinions or opinions contrary to those
of the Uruguayan Government are persecuted and punished.
Recently, the Commission was informed of the measures taken by
the Government of Uruguay against a number of leaders of political
parties who made a joint statement against the Uruguayan Government’s
political plans. Merely for having expressed an opinion against the
government plan, on Saturday, June 14, 1980, the following individuals
were arrested: -
Dr. Jorge Batlle, of the Partido Colorado -
Dr. Amílcar Vasconcellos, senator of the Partido Colorado -
Prof. Carlos Julio Pereyra, senator of the Partido Nacional -
Esc. Dardo Ortíz, senator of the Partido Nacional -
Dr. Juan Pablo Terra, senator and President of the
Christian Democrat Party -
Mr. Raumar Jude, of the Partido Colorado, who has an arrest
warrant out against him and at the present time, according to
information received, is in hiding. 8.
POLITICAL RIGHTS
As a consequence of the present situation in the Republic of
Uruguay, individuals representative of almost all political sectors of
that country have informed the Commission of their concern with respect
to the existing situation, which is not only in violation of human
rights but also shows the inconceivable intent of the authorities to
repress any form of expression that, in the Government’s opinion,
takes issue with its political plan. The situation is not the one best
suited to development of the political program announced by the
Government.
The opinion of the major part of the country’s political forces
is that the present climate is not conducive to constitutional reform,
and this in itself is a serious political problem that is of concern to
the Commission. The necessary conditions claimed to be lacking are a
suitable climate of political freedom, a truly free press, guarantees,
etc., which are essential for the holding of a national plebiscite.
The six Constitutions that Uruguay has approved and enacted
during its existence as a republic contain no precedent whatever for an
action like the one with which issue is taken with the current
Government, that is, its attempt to impose a constitution without the
participation of the nation’s political forces, which are its
political parties. 9.
THE RIGHT OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE
A number of denunciations received by the Commission from
Uruguayan citizens, who allege that they have been the victims of
various violations of human rights on the part of Uruguayan authorities,
all point to the problems they have with Uruguayan authorities vis-à-vis
the use of their passports when they want to travel abroad or when they
are traveling in other countries.
Such facts, which are almost never the main reason for the
complaint but rather only one episode more among the facts that are
presented to the Commission for its consideration, are meaningful when
it is shown that these are not simply isolated cases that happen to one
or a few persons, but rather a systematic and practically generalized
practice applied to a significant number of Uruguayan citizens whose way
of thinking places them at odds with and in opposition to the political
objectives of the Government.
It has been explained to the Commission that this practice takes
the following forms: 1.
refusal to issue passports; 2.
refusal to review passports at the end of first period of
the document’s effect (five years) or when it expires (ten years in
all, as of the date of the original issuance); 3.
issuance of limited passports that only allow the
individual to travel to certain countries expressly listed in the
document, and 4.
confiscation of valid passport.
The individuals against whom such measures are taken would be as
follows:
a.
individuals who have been tried for political activities
considered to be criminal;
b.
individuals who, while not having been brought to trial, have
been held prisoner because of political or union activities;
c.
individuals who have been summoned because of their political or
union activities;
d.
individuals who, while not having been brought to trial, held
prisoner, or summoned, have a background of political or union
activities, in teaching, in journalism, or various expressions of
culture and art, and
d.
individuals who, without necessarily having been involved in any
of the situations indicated above, have taken part in activities that
denounce the situation of the Uruguayan people, have expressed their
solidarity in one or another way, or simply, have expressed concern with
regard to violations of human rights in Uruguay.
As for the situations that have presented themselves in recent
years as a result of these restrictive measures with respect to
passports, one of the statements placed at the Commission’s disposal
states the following:
Outside the country, the decision to refuse passports means that
Uruguayans do not have papers, which creates many difficulties for them.
It forces them to resort to a number of measures—usually refuge—to
resolve the problem. First they face a period of uncertainty while the
requests are sent to Montevideo to be processed; that period is often as
long as five or six months. During that period the individuals in
question are at least temporarily without papers, since the requests can
only be submitted when the passport is about to expire.
There are other complications involved. For example, certain
foreign service officers refuse to handle the proceedings that
individuals who have been denied a passport attempt to initiate. Thus,
some Uruguayans are condemned to a kind of “civil death” which in
some cases prevents them from using the normal channels to register
their children born abroad (generally, this registration is the only
type of measure that Uruguayans who have no papers are allowed to take),
conducting consular procedures, legalizing documents or obtaining
certificates.
Clearly, there are some remedies for Uruguayans who have been
deprived of a passport. Some of them can claim the nationality of the
country of origin of their ancestors. This formula can be used in a
country where immigration contributed to much of the population;
however, it is not always feasible because of the requirements and
limitations imposed by various laws. Others have had to opt for refuge
or political asylum, when they are in a position to accede to it.
Otherwise, they must agree to obtain special documents and travel
papers, which, as is known, are not as universally accepted as regular
passports. A few can apply for nationality in the country wherein they
reside although, save for exceptional cases, this solution requires a
period of stable residence that is considerably lengthy and involves
complicated procedures.
There have been some cases where the passport was granted to
individuals for whom refusal might have been expected because of similar
precedents. In a few exceptional instances, where the authorities have
processed requests submitted by the interested parties, the decisions
denying the requests have been reversed; but this has occurred in no
more than a dozen cases as against others where the denial has been
upheld even after the corresponding appeals have been made. The
exceptions in the application of the general criteria denounced do not
substantially alter the policy followed. 10.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The Commission has been able to verify that within the period
covered in this commentary, the denunciations against the Government of
Uruguay alleging violation of human rights, have dropped; that the
number of individuals held prisoner for political reasons has also
dropped; that there have been few detentions than in previous years and
that the number of deaths as a result of confrontation has also
significantly dropped;
2.
However, the structure of the Uruguayan Government has remained
intact, with all the features described in earlier reports; there is
nothing that allows one to assume that significant changes have been
made designed to avoid the excesses permitted in repressing subversion;
3.
The Uruguayan Government has not conducted the investigations
recommended by the Commission to establish the guilt of the authors of
acts of torture and other abuses inflicted upon political detainees;
4.
The text of the new draft constitution entitled “Principles,
bases and conditions of the new Constitution,” which the
Uruguayan Government has drafted and submitted to the Council of State
for approval, contains serious contradictions of the standards contained
in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the
national plebiscite convoked for its approval does not give the
Uruguayan voter any choices;
5.
The “prompt security measures,” in accordance with the draft
constitution, would become only one of three new categories of “states
of emergency,” and would be the least severe. Alongside the “prompt
security measures” the Constitution would establish the “state of
subversion,” which would be much more intensive in scope; the third
category would be the “state of war,” with which a constitutional
system would be established in Uruguay where the repressive machinery
would be intensified and important constitutional guarantees contained
in the 1966 Constitution would be eliminated, and
6.
Most of the political forces in Uruguay, through their authorized
spokesmen, have told the Commission of their concern over the Uruguayan
Government’s intention to hold, following its “political
chronogram,” presidential elections in 1981, with only one candidate
who must have the approval of the Armed Forces, and a national
plebiscite to approve the new constitution in November of this year,
despite the fact that the proper climate and the essential required for
such political acts do not exist because of the nonexistence of an
adequate climate of political freedom, the absence of a truly free
press, the lack of guarantees, etc., elements which are essential to
carry out any act of political significance such as the ones mentioned. 11.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission repeats the recommendations that it made to the
Government of Uruguay in its previous reports. In particular, on this
occasion, it would like to recommend to that Government the following: a. That a complete and impartial investigation be ordered to
establish who was responsible for the deaths, caused by physical duress,
of those individuals who were being detained or who were under arrest
and that it inform the Commission of the results of that investigation. b.
That it amend or repeal the laws of exception which, as has been
pointed out in this report, often place serious limitations on human
rights in Uruguay and in some cases have led to manifest abuses as, for
example, the limitations on the rights of association and assembly,
politically motivated cancellation of retirement privileges and refusal
to issue passports to certain Uruguayans. c. That it take the necessary steps to reestablish the
representative democratic system which, as the Commission has repeatedly
pointed out, is the most effective guarantee of the observance of human
rights. In this regard, the Commission does not wish to indicate any
specific measure that the Government should adopt, but it must point out
that the measures the Government has announced are not conducive to that
goal. d. The Commission considers it advisable to insist upon the need for
an on-site observation for the purposes indicated in its previous
report.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
1
On May 16, 1980, the provisions of the law cited above were
published in the Uruguayan newspapers; the law, dated June 12, 1976,
establishes the functions and competence of the Council of State. 2
Article XXII of the American Declaration. 3
Article XX of the American Declaration. 4
The National Security Council will be a member of the
Executive Power. The President of the Republic, “together with the
Joint Chiefs of Command, will be responsible for national security
and defense.” This last provision should be interpreted bearing in
mind that the concept of “national security” is specifically
defined as follows: “the state whereby all forms of the national
estate and the process of development toward national objectives are
protected against internal or external interference or
aggression.” Express provision is made for broad participation on
the part of the Armed Forces.. The Joint Staff “shall be
adequately tied in with public agencies and the private sector.”
The Armed Forces’ participation or agreement is mandatory in a
wide variety of areas: for example, preparation of the internal
budget of the legislative organ or the proposals made by the
President of the Republic before the Constitutional Tribunal. 5
The task of “political control” is entrusted to a
Constitutional Tribunal. This organ shall be made up of “the
Council of the Nation, before it is dissolved.” The Council of the
Nation is an organ that exists at the present time and is composed
of all the active generals (and their counterparts in the Navy and
the Air Force) and the members of the Council of State who have been
appointed by the President. Vacancies that occur on the
Constitutional Tribunal are to be filled subsequently by a system
based on cooptation (the President will select the candidate from a
slate proposed by the Tribunal itself). Its functions and powers are
extraordinarily broad. It may “order removal from post” in cases
of “nonobservance of ethical, moral or civic standards.” It may
act on its own initiative and “decide by conviction.” 6
The “state subversion” is defined as “a serious
domestic situation with or without support from abroad,
characterized by events or attitudes that affect the life, freedom
and security of the Nation.” The President, with the National
Security Council, may decree a state of subversion. The legislative
organ may lift the state of subversion only after 60 days, and by a
vote of two thirds of its members. 7
“Military jurisdiction will be limited to military crimes,
crimes of lese majesty, crimes used as means of action and in any
way connected with or related to subversion and the state of war.
These crimes are to be the competence of the military courts even
when their author is a civilian. Common crimes committed by military
personnel in time of peace and military crimes committed by
civilians will be subject to the provisions of the law. 8
Judges will be appointed by the Court of Justice but with
prior and mandatory intervention by the Ministry of Justice,
“whose justified opposition shall constitute an impediment.” The
Ministry of Justice may also intervene “to regularize the
situation,” in the case of irregularities on the part of judicial
offices. The members of the Court of Justice will be appointed by
the President with the approval of the legislature (before they were
appointed by the Parliament). The Ministry of Justice will also
intervene in the appointment of administrative officers. 9
For example: Resolution 34-35, of December 1979. 10
United Nations document HR/1871. 11
United Nations Document HR/891. 12
200th Report of the Committee on Union Freedom.
Case 763, paragraphs 29 and 36.
|