By Patrick Vanderpool
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay – For the first time in history, Uruguay has imprisoned an active military official for human rights violations committed during the country’s 1973-85 dictatorship.

On Monday, General Miguel Dalmao was jailed for Nibia Sabalsagaray’s 1974 murder.  Sabalsagaray, a communist, was found hung in a prison cell after Dalmao had detained her.  If convicted, Dalmao may face 30 years in prison.  Col. Jose Chialanza was also jailed in connection with Sabalsagaray’s murder.

Sabalsagaray was found hanged in her cell shortly after being captured by Uruguayan military officers. At the time Sabalsagaray was detained, Chialanza was a battalion commander and Dalmao was a lieutenant in charge of gathering intelligence on individuals who were suspected of subversion.

Dalmao and Chialanza both claim that Sabalsagaray hanged herself.  However, Prosecutor Mirtha Guianze and lawyers for Sabalsagaray’s family presented evidence that they claim rules out the possibility of suicide.

Dalmao, who currently commands the Uruguayan army’s 4th Division, has repeatedly and steadfastly asserted his innocence.  Uruguay’s top army general, Jorge Rosales, has also publically supported Dalmao’s claims of innocence.  Nevertheless, the Uruguayan military has not issued any statements since Dalmao was officially imprisoned.

Uruguay Supreme Court’s recent ruling, declaring unconstitutional a law which made it easier for those alleged to have committed human rights violation during the dictatorship to achieve amnesty, may pave the way for not only Dalmao and Chialanza, but many others, to serve jail time for their violations.

To this point, a dozen Uruguayan military officials have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity, but all were committed outside Uruguay.  The court’s decision makes available the possibility that additional human rights violators within the country will be sought out and prosecuted.

Dalmao will remain jailed throughout the appeals process; the process will likely take several months.

For more information, please see:

The Argentina Independent – Uruguay: Military Dictatorship Crime Prosecutions – 9 November 2010

The Canadian Press – Active Uruguayan general imprisoned for aggravated murder in 1974 death of political prisoner – 8 November 2010

Kansascity.com – Active Uruguayan general imprisoned in 1974 murder – 8 November 2010

By R. Renee Yaworsky
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

CARACAS, Venezuela–President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has again been accused of silencing voices of opposition by controlling and censoring the media.  A popular media watchdog, the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), has issued a report alleging that Chavez’s restrictions on members of the press bring to mind events during the Cold War in eastern Europe.

David Natera is the director of Venezuelan newspaper El Correo del Caroni and president of the Venezuelan Press Bloc, a group representing the owners of the country’s primary newspapers.  Natera presented the report against Chavez at IAPA’s 66th General Assembly in Mexico.  The report stated that Chavez “seeks to control ideas, and to impose silence” on anyone who disagrees with the government.

Natera’s report went on to accuse Chavez of seizing media outlets and expropriating property as part of a “social control strategy” so that “the people will have to depend on the state exclusively to get jobs or food.”  The report continued:  “To achieve this perverse end, Chavez needs silence, the silence of the media and of journalists. He needs the silence and the fear that were typical of the sad and oppressed peoples of Cold War-era eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and today’s Cuba under [Raul and Fidel] Castro.”

Natera was optimistic, however, that members of the press in Venezuela, though oppressed, will doggedly strive to maintain impartiality and report the truth.

Chavez considers himself a socialist revolutionary and is seen by many as an enemy of the free press.  In July of this year, his government acquired a minority stake in Globovision, the sole remaining opposition television network.  Similarly, in 2007, Chavez terminated the broadcasting license of the most popular independent television network in the country, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV).

According to Natera’s report, over the past year, 113 physical attacks against journalists have been reported in Venezuela.  In addition to these assaults, journalists have been imprisoned or sent into exile.  Acknowledging these human rights violations, Natera said:  “The independent media, which the government calls ‘private media’, are the ones that defend the Constitution, freedom of expression and the people’s right to a free and uncensored information.”

IAPA is a press advocacy group representing media organizations in North America, South America and the Caribbean.  It boasts a membership of 1,300 newspapers and magazines.

For more information, please see:

El Universal-“Chavez needs silence of the media,” IAPA cautions-8 November 2010

AFP-Venezuela’s Chavez targets freedom of press: watchdog-8 November 2010

RTT News-Chavez Imposing Media Censorship: Watchdog-8 November 2010

El Mercurio – Hugo Chávez busca controlar las ideas e imponer silencio a medios de prensa en Venezuela, dice la SIP – 8 November 2010

By Patrick Vanderpool
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay – Uruguay’s high court recently declared a law providing amnesty for human rights violations committed during the 1973-1985 dictatorship unconstitutional.

The Court’s decision coincides with controversial Congressional efforts to overturn the law, which protects former military and law enforcement officials from prosecution as a result of rights abuses.

The issue most recently came to public attention in the case of Juan Maria Bordaberry, a former “strongman” who is said to be responsible for 20 deaths.  Bordaberry ruled as democratically elected president from 1972 to 1973 and as dictator from 1973 to 1976, but was later sentenced to 30 years in prison for violating the constitution and another 30 years for the extrajudicial killings of 14 people who went missing during his rule.

The court’s decision comes amidst heated legislative debate between the governing center-left regime and the opposition.  The government sent Congress a bill to rescind the Ley de Caducidad (Expiry Law), even though the amnesty was upheld in referendums in 1989 and 2009.

The Expiry Law requires both the executive branch and the Supreme Court to authorize each judicial investigation launched into alleged crimes committed by security force members during the military regime.  The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday allows an investigation into a case in which Bordaberry was accused by different human rights groups of responsibility for the deaths of 20 people.

The ruling party has justified the new bill, now before the Senate after its approval in the lower house, on the basis of a previous Supreme Court decision from October 2009.  The 2009 ruling marked the first time Uruguay’s highest tribunal had taken a stand against the amnesty law. The case was brought by a veteran human rights activist seeking justice for Communist Party activist Nibia Sabalsagaray, killed in 1974 by government agents.

Proponents of the bill want Uruguayan courts to consider all international human rights conventions signed by the country to be protected by the constitution, a step that would automatically invalidate the Expiry Law.  Opponents of the proposed law, including former Presidents Julio Maria Sanguinetti and Jorge Batlle, say the bill is “an affront to citizens who have upheld the law” and “an attack on Uruguay’s institutions.”

For more information, please see:

Latin American Herald Tribune – Uruguay High Court Declares Amnesty Law Unconstitutional – 4 November 2010

Americas Quarterly – Uruguayan Amnesty Law Unconstitutional – 3 November 2010

Washington Post – Uruguay’s High Court Annuls Dictatorship’s Amnesty – 1 November 2010

By R. Renee Yaworsky
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

BOGOTA, Colombia—Former president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, has been subpoenaed to testify in U.S. federal court against Drummond, an Alabama-based coal company.  It is claimed that Drummond helped right-wing paramilitaries in their activities, including the murders of at least 116 people.  It is believed that Uribe’s testimony will provide details about significant matters relevant to the civil case.

About 500 plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that Drummond aided the Colombian Army and the United Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC paramilitaries) in their fight against left-wing guerrillas.  The plaintiffs are speaking out on behalf of numerous relatives whom they say were murdered by the AUC during the years 1999 to 2005.  They are demanding compensation from Drummond for the harm done by this violence.

Terry Collingsworth, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said Uribe will be questioned about the connection between his Army at the time and the AUC, including what knowledge Uribe’s government had about Drummond’s operations.

Plaintiffs claim that Uribe “has direct knowledge of a number of key cases, including until what point the armed forces supported the paramilitary protection of mining properties of Drummond.”  Collingsworth added that one of Uribe’s aides was also working for Drummond during the time period of interest.  Uribe “knows the levels of cooperation between the armed forces and the AUC, specifically in regions like Cesar where Drummond was active,” the lawyer explained.

Drummond’s alleged cooperation with paramilitaries is not the only instance of its kind.  Three years ago, Chiquita, a banana company, said they paid $1.7 million to guerilla fighters; in 2001, Coca-Cola was accused of similar connections.

Uribe was president of Colombia from 2002 to 2010.  He is expected to testify in Washington D.C. on November 22 of this year; however, Uribe has not announced whether he will actually show up for the hearing.  The former president is now employed by Georgetown University in Washington D.C. teaching classes.

For more information, please see:

Miami Herald-Colombia’s ex-leader Alvaro Uribe subpoenaed in U.S. federal court-5 November 2010

Inside Costa Rica-Colombian’s Former President Uribe Summoned to Testify on Killings-5 November 2010

Colombia Reports-Uribe ordered to testify in Drummond case-4 November 2010

By Patrick Vanderpool
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

LIMA, Peru – Popular Peruvian blogger Jose Alejandro Godoy has been sentenced to three years in prison and 120 days of community service for “defamation.”  In addition, Godoy was ordered to pay a fine of 350,000 soles, approximately $125,000 U.S. dollars.  This represents the first time in Peruvian history that such an action has been taken against a blogger.

Former Peru Congressman Jorge Mufarech filed charges against Godoy in 2009 for one of the blogger’s posts.  The post, which was titled “Desde el Tercer Piso” (From the Third Floor), illustrated threats that Congressman Mufarech made against Arzibu Gonzalez, an advisor for Peru’s Nationalist Party.

Godoy published links to numerous documents which tended to substantiate the threat allegations.  One such document was a letter sent from Arzibu to Congressman Fredy Otarola, a member of Peru’s Nationalist Party, detailing the threats.  Although Mufarech demanded that the post be taken down, it was not, and the ex-Congressman filed suit.

Other Peruvian journalists have been outspoken against the ruling.  The Lima-based Press and Society Institute called the ruling “unconstitutional” and “without precedent.”  In a statement, Press and Society Institute stated, “[t]he lack of judicial support for the sentence… as well as the excessive sentence, shows a clear attempt, without precedent, against freedom of the press in the history of Peru. [i]t is the first sentence that has been produced in this country against a blogger.

In perhaps the most powerful outcry of support, Susana Villaran, the likely mayor-elect of Peru’s capital city of Lima, called the conviction “an attack on freedom of expression.”

Godoy is not accepting the verdict without a fight.  Stating “[i]t is an unfair, illegal ruling and doesn’t only go against the Constitution but against international human rights agreements,” the blogger has vowed to appeal the final ruling.

For more information, please see:

Guardian.co.uk – Peru Blogger Jailed for Three Years – 2 November 2010

Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas – Peruvian Journalists Condemn Blogger’s Defamation Conviction – 1 November 2010

Peruvian Times – Peru Judge Hits Local Blogger with 3 Year Prison Sentence, First of Kind in Peru – 29 October 2010