A woman displays a sign in Montevideo demanding that the Supreme Court revoke the Ley de Caducidad

By Pierre-Louis Le Goff

Uruguay has recently taken several important steps towards dealing with the human rights violations perpetrated throughout the civic-military dictatorship in the 1970s and early 80s.  Of most symbolic importance, last October the left-wing Frente Amplio government, headed by the former-guerrilla José Mujica, successfully revoked the country’s 25-year-old amnesty law.[i]

The Ley de Caducidad de la Prevención Punitiva del Estado (Law on the Expiry of the Punitive Claims of the State – hereafter Ley de Caducidad), adopted by the Sanguinetti administration in 1986, exonerated military and security personnel from prosecution for the crimes – including forced disappearances, torture, and murder – committed between 1973 and March 1985.[ii]

Furthermore, the law stipulated that any lawsuit filed against military personnel had to meet the approval of the Executive in order to determine if it was covered by the law, thus undermining the separation of powers between the branches of government, and violating the independence of the Judiciary.

For many, the Ley de Caducidad came to embody what Lessa calls the politics of ‘silence and oblivion’ regarding the crimes of the dictatorship,[iii] and it became the cornerstone of the culture of impunity that was installed and maintained by successive governments following the return to democracy.

Overturning the law means that the Judiciary is now free to judge and that those responsible for abuses carried out a generation ago can finally be held to account.

Despite this significant advance, the political and media assault unleashed against Judge Mariana Mota – responsible for investigating the crimes of the dictatorship[iv] – towards the end of March 2012 reveals that while the Ley de Caducidad may be dead, it is not yet buried.[v]

The attack on Mota was the result of comments made during an interview with the Argentine newspaper Página/12,[vi] in which she criticized the Uruguayan government’s efforts in shedding light on the crimes of the past.

‘There is no promotion of human rights so that the situation, which is national and affected everyone, can be elucidated’ she stated, ‘[President] Mujica and the Defence Minister [Eleutorio Fernández Huidobro, both former Tupamaros] were imprisoned by the dictatorship, and it is perhaps for this reason that they cannot view the situation objectively.’[vii]

Her declarations provided the ammunition for an all-out assault aimed at removing her from her role as a judge in human rights trials, events which could increase dramatically following the repeal of the amnesty law.

She found herself the subject of disparaging personal attacks by several figures within the political system. The radio program En Perspectiva provided a platform to launch the assault: Carlos Maggi, representing the Partido Colorado, described Mota as a ‘loudmouth’ and ‘unbalanced,’ adding that ‘it would be better if she went and practiced civil law where she could inflict less damage the honor and liberty of people’; Matilde Rodríguez, of the Partido Blanco, said she suffered from ‘verbal diarrhoea’; the show’s host, Emiliano Cotelo, added his insight declaring that when Mota took the testimonies of female victims of torture under the dictatorship, she did so ‘wanting them to have been raped so she can judge more people in a more vicious way.’[viii]

More worrying, however, was the reaction of President Mujica who was quoted by Búsqueda as saying, ‘I wanted to wait to see what happened, to see if there would be protests against these declarations that arose on their own, but there still haven’t been any […] I realised that there hadn’t been any protests whatsoever, not even from the Supreme Court or anything else…’[ix]

The following day President Mujica demanded the intervention of the Supreme Court, which duly requested that the Judge present a report explaining her declarations.

As Mota explained in the Página/12 interview, there had been previous attacks aimed at removing her from her role.  But what is most troubling about this episode is that it came following the revocation of the Ley de Caducidad and the Executive remained complicit in the violation of Mota’s judicial independence.

The attack highlights the deep roots of the culture of impunity established under the amnesty law; just as there continues to be impunity for many human rights violators, President Mujica still enjoys the impunity to violate the separation of powers.

An important step towards burying the Ley de Caducidad, therefore, means establishing the political will backed by the institutional capacity to ensure that justice and accountability are achieved, and that Uruguay makes the transition from a culture of impunity to a culture of human rights.