Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09MONTEVIDEO128
2009-03-05 13:02:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Montevideo
how-toVZCZCXYZ0002 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHMN #0128/01 0641302 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 051302Z MAR 09 FM AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8856 INFO RUCNMER/MERCOSUR COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L MONTEVIDEO 000128
SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/BSC MDASCHBACH
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2024
TAGS: PGOV PHUM UY
SUBJECT: URUGUAY REVISITS ITS AMNESTY LAW
Summary
-------
C O N F I D E N T I A L MONTEVIDEO 000128
SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/BSC MDASCHBACH
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2024
TAGS: PGOV PHUM UY
SUBJECT: URUGUAY REVISITS ITS AMNESTY LAW
Summary
--------------
1. (C) The Uruguayan political establishment has returned
forcefully to a debate dating from Uruguay's emergence from
dictatorship 23 years ago. Uruguay's Supreme Court took the
unprecedented step of requesting on February 6, 2009, that
its separate but equal co-branches of government opine on the
constitutionality of Uruguay's 1986 amnesty law, which
ostensibly shields members of the uniformed services and
others from prosecution for crimes committed during the
military regime of 1973-85. The ruling Frente Amplio
coalition ("Broad Front", FA) strongly supports derogation of
the law while the opposition believes a repeal only reopens
old wounds. The on-going electoral campaign offers the
opportunity for this issue to take on new life. End Summary.
Background
--------------
2. (SBU) The Uruguayan Parliament approved an amnesty law
(commonly called the "Ley de Caducidad") in 1986, which
protects members of the uniformed services who committed
crimes during the dictatorship (1973-85). The military had
pushed for the law after President Sanguinetti granted
amnesty to all political prisoners upon taking office as the
first elected president following the return to democracy.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in
1988, and a majority of the population voted against its
repeal in a plebiscite in 1989, thereby ratifying it. In
2000, the government of President Jorge Batlle created a
Peace Commission, which began investigating the fate of those
detained or disappeared during the military regime. When
President Tabare Vazquez took office in 2005, he
reinterpreted article 4 of the amnesty law, granting the
executive branch the ability to investigate the destiny of
the detained or disappeared and specifically exclude specific
individuals from amnesty protections. As a result, Uruguay's
judiciary has investigated and begun trials for a number of
retired members of military and former police officers,
including former dictator Gregorio Alvarez.
New Developments
--------------
3. (SBU) The current situation arose when Prosecutor Mirtha
Guianze petitioned the Supreme Court to investigate the case
of Nibya Salbasagaray, a communist who died in military
captivity in 1974. Doing so required a ruling on whether or
not the amnesty law held in this particular instance. The
Court then requested the opinion of the Executive and
Legislative branches on whether the amnesty law is
constitutional. While the Court has requested the opinion of
the Executive branch before, this is the first time since its
drafting that the law's legality was debated in Parliament.
In its non-binding opinion, the Vazquez government
unsurprisingly declared the law to be unconstitutional on
February 17. For its part, the Parliament dedicated an
entire day to debate the issue on February 25 before
concurring with the Executive. NOTE: The FA holds a majority
in Parliament. Members of the principal opposition Blanco
party either did not attend or entered the chamber to
denounce the revival of the issue and left before the vote.
Only one member of the other opposition parties, the Colorado
and Independent parties, attended, and they did not concur
with the FA. End Note. The Supreme Court now must make an
official determination on the unconstitutionality of the
amnesty law.
4. (SBU) There has also been an effort by a citizens' group
to collect signatures in order to put the issue on the ballot
this October, with the hope of overturning the previous
referendum and voiding the law. The group currently has over
220,000 signatures, which falls short of the legally-mandated
250,000 needed to assure that the referendum makes it on the
ballot, but that figure could be reached shortly.
Comment
--------------
5. (C) The electoral climate has heated up in Uruguay, and
even minor issues have greater resonance. This is a
particularly polarizing subject here, and both the GOU and
its opposition appear to have determined that their best
interests lie on opposite sides of the debate, exactly where
they were when the law was first passed with Blanco and
Colorado support. It is therefore not an issue that will
change anyone's mind about how to vote. What it might do,
though, is awaken emotions that could lead to a less civil
campaign than we would otherwise see. End Comment.
Matthewman
SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/BSC MDASCHBACH
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2024
TAGS: PGOV PHUM UY
SUBJECT: URUGUAY REVISITS ITS AMNESTY LAW
Summary
--------------
1. (C) The Uruguayan political establishment has returned
forcefully to a debate dating from Uruguay's emergence from
dictatorship 23 years ago. Uruguay's Supreme Court took the
unprecedented step of requesting on February 6, 2009, that
its separate but equal co-branches of government opine on the
constitutionality of Uruguay's 1986 amnesty law, which
ostensibly shields members of the uniformed services and
others from prosecution for crimes committed during the
military regime of 1973-85. The ruling Frente Amplio
coalition ("Broad Front", FA) strongly supports derogation of
the law while the opposition believes a repeal only reopens
old wounds. The on-going electoral campaign offers the
opportunity for this issue to take on new life. End Summary.
Background
--------------
2. (SBU) The Uruguayan Parliament approved an amnesty law
(commonly called the "Ley de Caducidad") in 1986, which
protects members of the uniformed services who committed
crimes during the dictatorship (1973-85). The military had
pushed for the law after President Sanguinetti granted
amnesty to all political prisoners upon taking office as the
first elected president following the return to democracy.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in
1988, and a majority of the population voted against its
repeal in a plebiscite in 1989, thereby ratifying it. In
2000, the government of President Jorge Batlle created a
Peace Commission, which began investigating the fate of those
detained or disappeared during the military regime. When
President Tabare Vazquez took office in 2005, he
reinterpreted article 4 of the amnesty law, granting the
executive branch the ability to investigate the destiny of
the detained or disappeared and specifically exclude specific
individuals from amnesty protections. As a result, Uruguay's
judiciary has investigated and begun trials for a number of
retired members of military and former police officers,
including former dictator Gregorio Alvarez.
New Developments
--------------
3. (SBU) The current situation arose when Prosecutor Mirtha
Guianze petitioned the Supreme Court to investigate the case
of Nibya Salbasagaray, a communist who died in military
captivity in 1974. Doing so required a ruling on whether or
not the amnesty law held in this particular instance. The
Court then requested the opinion of the Executive and
Legislative branches on whether the amnesty law is
constitutional. While the Court has requested the opinion of
the Executive branch before, this is the first time since its
drafting that the law's legality was debated in Parliament.
In its non-binding opinion, the Vazquez government
unsurprisingly declared the law to be unconstitutional on
February 17. For its part, the Parliament dedicated an
entire day to debate the issue on February 25 before
concurring with the Executive. NOTE: The FA holds a majority
in Parliament. Members of the principal opposition Blanco
party either did not attend or entered the chamber to
denounce the revival of the issue and left before the vote.
Only one member of the other opposition parties, the Colorado
and Independent parties, attended, and they did not concur
with the FA. End Note. The Supreme Court now must make an
official determination on the unconstitutionality of the
amnesty law.
4. (SBU) There has also been an effort by a citizens' group
to collect signatures in order to put the issue on the ballot
this October, with the hope of overturning the previous
referendum and voiding the law. The group currently has over
220,000 signatures, which falls short of the legally-mandated
250,000 needed to assure that the referendum makes it on the
ballot, but that figure could be reached shortly.
Comment
--------------
5. (C) The electoral climate has heated up in Uruguay, and
even minor issues have greater resonance. This is a
particularly polarizing subject here, and both the GOU and
its opposition appear to have determined that their best
interests lie on opposite sides of the debate, exactly where
they were when the law was first passed with Blanco and
Colorado support. It is therefore not an issue that will
change anyone's mind about how to vote. What it might do,
though, is awaken emotions that could lead to a less civil
campaign than we would otherwise see. End Comment.
Matthewman