Early this morning, Uruguay's parliament overturned a amnesty law that had protected those who had committed human rights violations during Urugay's 1973-1985 dictatorship. This would allow the government "full punitive powers" to prosecute state terrorists who had abducted and executed citizens during the military rule.
What kind of repercussions can we see from this law being overturned? Can peace be enhanced by punishing crimes that occurred over 25 years ago? Does prosecution lead to better results than the truth and reconciliation commissions of countries like Argentina and South Africa?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2011/10/27/uruguay-overturns-war-crime-amnesty-law
Appealing amnesty for crimes that were committed 25 years seems to be motivated by general deterrence and for the criminals to attest for their actions.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably more of a political stance rather than the actual pursuit of justice, because the evidence against them would be hard to obtain unless there are survivors who are able to testify against the individuals.
It should be interesting to see how these trials are conducted and how each side will be represented