CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014
Commander-in-Chief of the Army in 1978 and 1979. In addition, from 1 September
1981 to 1 January 1985 he served as de facto President of the State party.
2.2 In 1984, with a view to establishing a democratic regime, the Armed Forces, the
political parties and the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement reached an
agreement, known as the Club Naval Pact, which provided for the adoption of legal
measures that were subsequently put in place with the adoption of the Amnesty Act
(No. 15737) and the Expiry of the Punitive Powers of the State Act (No. 15848), on 8
March 1985 and 22 December 1986, respectively.
2.3 Act No. 15737 decreed “amnesty for all political offences, and ordinary and
military offences related thereto, committed from 1 January 1962”. In addition, Act
No. 15848 established that “the exercise of the punitive powers of the State in respect
of crimes committed prior to 1 March 1985 by military and police personnel, for
political reasons or in the performance of their duties or on orders from commanding
officers who served during the period of de facto Government, [had] expired ”. Act No.
15848 made the Executive competent to decide if a case fell within the scope of the
Act and provided that, if it did, the judge was to c lose the case.
2.4 The author claims that both laws were implemented between 1985 and 2005 and
that the Supreme Court of Justice repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of Act No.
15848. Moreover, in two referendums concerning the Act held in 1986 and 2009 a
majority voted against its repeal and annulment, respectively.
2.5 The author claims that since 2005 the Executive has been controlled by a
political party composed of members of the groups that the regime in power from
1973 to 1985 had fought against. He further maintains that, since 2005, Government
authorities have used the powers conferred upon them by law to investigate and
prosecute offences committed by members of the Armed Forces and the police
between 1973 and 1985, pointing out that these offences were not covered by Act No.
15848. The author highlights that the State party’s authorities have also applied Act
No. 15737, which, in his opinion, favours members of the groups that fought against
the civilian-military regime.
2.6 On 25 September 2006, Act No. 18026, on cooperation with the International
Criminal Court in combating genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, was
promulgated, establishing the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to the
crime of enforced disappearance, among other offences. It defined the crime of
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as the crime of enforced
disappearance, among others.
2.7 On 16 May 2007, relatives of disappeared persons filed a complaint against a
number of officials of the civilian-military Government, alleging that members of their
families were victims of enforced disappearances which occurred during transfers
carried out clandestinely by members of the Armed Forces in 1977 and 1978. Against
this backdrop, criminal proceedings were brought against the author before the
Nineteenth Rota Criminal Court of First Instance (Court No. 19). On 17 December
2007, Court No. 19 ruled that the author, together with one other person, should be
placed in pretrial detention and prosecuted on the charge of enforced disappearance.
The Court’s decision to order the author ’s pretrial detention was guided by the nature
and seriousness of the alleged acts and their social repercussions. At trial, the Public
Prosecution Service sought the author’s conviction for multiple offences of enforced
disappearance allegedly committed in Argentina in 1977 and 1978, as part of
Operation Condor. In his statements, the author affirmed, among other things, that he
was not aware of any Uruguayan citizens being detained in clandestine detention
centres in Uruguay or other countries or of Uruguayan military personnel being
involved in operations in Argentina and that, in any case, none of the military
GE.15-21845
3/11