Uruguay Supreme Court Denies Human Rights Abuses by Military Dictatorship

By Eric C. Sigmund
Managing Editor of News

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay – About 200 Uruguayans were kidnapped and murdered by military officials during the military dictatorship which ruled Uruguay from 1973-1985. Since the demise of the military regime, human rights activists have sought to bring those military leaders responsible for the detainment and state-sanctioned executions to justice for human rights violations. Over 25 years later, Uruguay’s Supreme Court ruled last week that the actions of two military officials accused of killing 28 people did not amount to human rights crimes.

The country has long debated how to address dictatorship-era crimes. A 1986 amnesty law currently protects former military officers from prosecutions for crimes committed during military rule. While the country’s legislature is currently deciding whether to repeal the law, stiff opposition from within President Jose Mujica’s ruling leftist coalition is causing political fragmentation within Parliament.

President Mujica, who has traditionally been supportive of the amnesty law, has said that he would not veto a repeal of the law. Despite the President’s support of the military, his ruling coalition has stressed that many of the cases against military officials fall outside the purview of the amnesty law. This has allowed the government to convict 20 former military officials since 2005. Many citizens however, remain unhappy with the government’s progress, noting that the amnesty law continues to shield some high profile officials from the reach of the law.

Last week’s ruling was another blow to human rights activists. While not denying the significant evidence of guilt presented against the officers, the Court ruled that the killings should be classified as murders rather than human rights violations. The Court’s decision is significant since the statute of limitations for murder in Uruguay, twenty years, has already expired. There is no statute of limitations for human rights crimes.

Human rights groups have been vocal in their opposition to the Court’s ruling. Representatives of the Memory and Justice Assembly called the ruling a “disgrace that will go down in history.” The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also urged the Uruguayan government to lift all restrictions to prosecution.

Perhaps the staunchest criticism of the government’s attempts to annul the amnesty law has come from within the military. A number of soldiers have condemned trials against former military officials and have called for an end to “political persecution.” Colonel José Araujo, further raised the prospect of fierce governmental infighting, stating that continued prosecution “may destabilize the country.”

While commentators have denied the existence of any tangible threats to democracy in the country, the process moving forward will likely continue to divide the country. Repeal of the 1986 amnesty bill could open the door for the prosecution of at least 10 more former military officials.

For more information, please see:

Reuters – Uruguay Rules State killings Not Human Rights Crimes – 13 May, 2011

Agence France Presse – Amnesty Law Overturn Stirs up Old Passions in Uruguay – 9 May, 2011

Guardian – Uruguay Split Over Ending Amnesty for Rights Violations Under Dictatorship – 26 April, 2011

ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Gadhafi

By R. Renee Yaworsky
Senior Desk Officer, Middle East

Col. Gadhafi (Photo courtesy of Globe and Mail)
Col. Gadhafi (Photo courtesy of Globe and Mail)

TRIPOLI, Libya—Colonel Moammar Gadhafi has been accused of “crimes against humanity.”  On Monday, International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked judges to issue the indictments against Gadhafi.  It has not even been two months since Gadhafi’s file was opened at the request of the United Nations Security Council, making this the quickest probe of its kind.

Moreno-Ocampo accused Gadhafi of “commit[ing] crimes with the goal of preserving authority,” using snipers to gun down protesters, encouraging violence against civilians and sending tanks into cities.  He also alleged that the leader ordered attacks on innocent civilians in their own residences, at funerals, and as they left religious services.   Gadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi were also accused of participation in the Colonel’s reign of terror.  The ICC believes that these 3 men bear the most guilt for “widespread and systematic attacks” against Libyan citizens.

NATO allies have celebrated the arrest warrant against Gadhafi.  Canada’s government issued a statement displaying its support of the ICC “in its efforts to ensure that justice is served and to show the world that crimes perpetrated by the Gadhafi regime will not be tolerated.”  Guma el-Gamaty of Libya’s Interim National Council stated that the acts of the ICC are “a very important step along the way to putting more pressure on Gadhafi and his son to leave or face arrest.”

Others remain skeptical that the ICC arrest warrant will be powerful enough, citing examples where war criminals have evaded justice (such as in the case of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who remains free to travel even after the ICC issued him a similar warrant).  Human rights defenders have been supportive of the ICC but stress the need for other war criminals to be held accountable as well.

Michael Bochenek of Amnesty International explained, “The request for arrest warrants is a step forward for international justice and accountability in the region.  [But] by any standard, what is happening in Syria is equal to, if not worse than, the situation in Libya when the Security Council referred that country to the ICC.”

One of Gadhafi’s spokesmen ridiculed the accusations against the Libyan leader and pointed out the fact that Libya was not a signatory to the ICC. Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Kaim dismissed the ICC as a “baby of the European Union designed for African politicians and leaders” with “questionable” practices.

For more information, please see:

Tripoli Post-ICC Seeking Warrant for Al-Qathafi and Two Other Family Members ‘For Crimes Against Humanity’-16 May 2011

BBC-Libya: Gaddafi ICC arrest warrant raises questions-16 May 2011

NPR-UN Prosecutor Calls For Gadhafi Arrest Warrant-16 May 2011

Globe and Mail-Warrants for Gadhafi could jeopardize possible exile deals-16 May 2011

War Crimes Prosecution Watch, Vol. 6, Issue 3

Compiled by the Public International Law and Policy Group and the Fred K. Cox Center of Case Western Reserve School of Law

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Central African Republic & Uganda

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Kenya

Libya

AFRICA

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

EUROPE

European Court of Human Rights

Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Domestic Prosecutions In The Former Yugoslavia

—
War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. For more information about War Crimes Prosecution Watch, please contact warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org.

The Courage To Admit A Mistake

By Jennifer Trahan

New York, N.Y.—Richard Goldstone, chairman of the Goldstone Commission that investigated crimes committed in Gaza during 2008-09 recently made a courageous and no doubt difficult decision—to recant part of the so-called Goldstone Commission report.  It is important to understand the implications of this new development—which does not completely exonerate Israel forces, and does not at all exonerate crimes committed by Hamas.

Goldstone was originally offered a mandate by the U.N. Human Rights Council to only investigate Israeli crimes committed during the Gaza incursion.  Goldstone, however, appropriately insisted on investigating crimes committed by both sides.  This he and other members of the Commission did.  Yet, Israel—not persuaded of the good faith of the Council’s inquiry (as suggested by the one-sided original mandate)—chose not to cooperate with the commission.  This lead Goldstone and other team members to conduct essentially a battle-damage assessment where they examined targets struck by Israeli forces in Gaza, targeting by Hamas and interviewed persons in Gaza and elsewhere, but were unable to obtain information as to Israeli targeting decisions.

The problem with such a damage assessment is that when civilians are killed or civilian infrastructure hit, this does not necessarily mean a war crime was committed—because the war crime of intentionally targeting civilians and the war crimes of intentionally targeting civilian objects both require a finding of intent.  Thus, for example, when a wedding party was hit in Afghanistan, the public did not assume that U.S. or coalition forces intended to target the wedding party.  Similarly, when civilians or civilian objects were hit in Gaza, one cannot necessarily know whether the war crime of intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects was committed, absent information about the intended target.  The one instance where Israeli forces admit intentionally targeting houses for destruction provides a rare admission of such intent.  But, as to other incidents, the Goldstone Commission was missing a key part of the puzzle due to Israel’s decision not to talk to the commission.

Admittedly, the Goldstone Commission’s findings that so many civilian structures were hit by Israeli forces tends to suggest that some, or even many, of the incidents could amount to war crimes.  But without knowing more, one cannot really be definitive as to which ones were and which ones weren’t.  For example, if Israeli forces perceived there to be a rocket launcher placed on a civilian target or mistakenly believed someone to be carrying a rocket launcher, that could warrant taking the strike (assuming proportionate use of force); if the information turns out to have been false no war crimes was committed, because intent was absent.  The Commission had an extremely difficult task, and, in retrospect, should not have been as definitive as it was as to its conclusions that both war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed, given the lack of full information available to them.

What is important to remember, however, is that Goldstone has only recanted part of the report:  the accusation that Israeli forces intentionally targeted civilians.  There is much else in the report that covers destruction of civilian objects and questions the use of certain weapons in a densely populated environment.  A report by a New York State Judge Mary McGowan Davis apparently finds that Israel has opened a number of investigations into the conduct of its forces, but as of yet only a few have been diligently concluded.  There are also reports that Israel forces have re-examined their conduct and modified some of their procedures.  Hamas, on the other hand, responsible for using rockets that were never directed at any particular military target (and thus an indiscriminate weapon), is not known to have conducted any comparable investigations, and continues to use such weapons.  Here, actually, one can be more definitive that this constitutes a war crime, because it is impermissible to use a weapon indiscriminately.

We do not know exactly what information Richard Goldstone received that caused him to recant his position, but no doubt it was not a decision taken lightly.  It is puzzling that he has received no support from his co-commissioners.  What is needed now is to ensure that the remainder of the accusations made in the report and the demand for diligent follow-up investigations and prosecutions are seen to fruition—on both sides.

Jennifer Trahan is the Assistant Clinical Professor of Global Affairs, N.Y.U.  Professor Trahan is also the author of two books entitled “Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” about the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Human Rights Watch 2006.