Significance: This is the first sentence issued by the IACHR against Uruguay, which still has in place an amnesty law (Ley de Caducidad) that prohibits the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed during the country's military dictatorship (1973-1985). Uruguay's left-wing ruling coalition, Frente Amplio (FA), which notably counts former members of Uruguay's guerrilla movement (Tupamaros) amongst its members, had recently renewed attempts to repeas aspects of the controversial law in order to avoid an IACHR sentence. The IACHR's ruling could set an important precedent in the region where some other countries have also established amnesty laws following periods of military rule, most notably Chile and Brazil where the IACHR recently found the State responsible for the forced disappearance of 62 people in the Araguaia region in the early 1970s.
Background: Gelman García is the daughter of Marcelo Ariel Gelman and María Claudia García de Gelman, an Argentine couple abducted by Argentine authorities in 1976 during the country's military rule (1976-1983). As part of the infamous Plan Cóndor, García, then seven months pregnant, was transferred to Uruguay where she gave birth to her daughter, only to have her taken away and given in adoption to a Uruguayan military family. After discovering her true identity in 2000, Gelman García campaigned for the repeal of the Ley de Caducidad so that the people responsible for her mother's disappearance could be identified and prosecuted. She brought her case to the IACHR in 2006.
Key Points:
According to the 24 February IACHR ruling, the Uruguayan state failed “to carry out an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts of the remains of María Claudia García de Gelman through a criminal investigation or other adequate procedure; it also failed to judge, and sanction those responsible for her disappearance and that of her daughter Macarena Gelman". As a result, Gelman García is to be compensated US$180,000 for non-pecuniary damages “as a consequence of her abduction, suppression and substitution of her identity"; plus US$5,000 to cover legal fees.
Crucially, the IACHR ruling refers to the Ley de Caducidad describing it as an “obstacle" pointing out that “[it] prevents the investigation and eventual sanction of those responsible of grave human rights violations". The IACHR recommends that “the Uruguayan state must ensure that it will not represent an obstacle for the investigation of the facts of the present case_ and other similar grave human rights violations carried out in Uruguay".
End of preview - This article contains approximately 497 words.
Subscribers: Log in now to read the full article
Not a Subscriber?
Choose from one of the following options
