Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Commend Uruguay for Creation of Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and Ask about Access to Archives
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances this afternoon considered the report of Uruguay submitted under article 29 (4) of the Convention, containing additional information on how the country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts commended Uruguay for the creation of the Prosecutor’s Office specialising in crimes against humanity, and also asked about access to archives.
Committee Experts commended Uruguay for the creation of the Prosecutor’s Office specialising in crimes against humanity, which was important for investigating the serious crimes of enforced disappearances. The mandate of the National Human Rights Institution to carry out searches was recognised, but the Committee was concerned at difficulties obtaining files from the Ministry of Defense. Could the delegation provide more information as to why those archives had not all been transferred to the National Human Rights Institution? Could a clearer timeframe be provided around the digitisation of the archives on recently disappeared persons?
Alvaro Moerzinger, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations based in Geneva and head of delegation, said Uruguay hoped to demonstrate the will of the State to prevent and combat the despicable practice of enforced disappearances. In 2013, a Prosecutor’s Office specialising in crimes against humanity had been created. The Office was granted jurisdiction in all criminal cases relating to violations of human rights which had occurred in the recent past, in response to a recommendation made by the Committee. The National Institution of Human Rights was granted search and investigation competency into persons subject to enforced disappearance in the recent past. To carry out such an important and sensitive task, it had been granted the necessary human and financial resources, as well as special legal powers such as unrestricted access to the archives of the intelligence services, public and private institutions, and access to all public and private establishments. That showed inter-institutional cooperation, in line with the recommendations of the Committee.
In response to questions, the delegation explained that archives held some digitised documents, around 70 terabytes’ worth. The archives on recently disappeared persons would be delivered shortly. There were many requests for information by different institutions of the State, including the National Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman. The information being requested was held within the Ministry of Defence, and was provided to the requesting institutions. Through a law on access to public information, any person could request the State to provide any information deemed important. Last year, documents had been found which had to do with the recent past, and they had been delivered to various bodies and then published on the website of the Ministry, for the general public.
In closing remarks, Mr. Moerzinger thanked the Committee for the dialogue, adding that every year in Uruguay, the topic was remembered with a great deal of emotion. The Convention was of prime importance, particularly when it came to protecting future victims.
Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the fruitful exchange, adding that the Committee and Uruguay had a shared goal of guaranteeing the application of the Convention in Uruguay, and needed to act as allies to prevent enforced disappearances.
The delegation of Uruguay was composed of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of National Defense; the Judicial Power; the Attorney General of the Nation; the Secretary of Human Rights for the recent past; and the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
All documents related to the twenty-third session of the Committee can be found here. Meeting summaries of its public meetings can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed at http://webtv.un.org/
The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Monday, 19 September, for a meeting with States parties.
Report
The Committee has before it a report by Uruguay submitted under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/URY/AI/1).
Presentation of Report
ALVARO MOERZINGER, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations based in Geneva and head of delegation, said Uruguay hoped to demonstrate the will of the State to prevent and combat the despicable practice of enforced disappearances.
Uruguay had made significant efforts to comply with the observations made by the Committee in 2013. In 2009, a law was approved which instituted comprehensive reparation for the victims of forced disappearances in the recent past. It provided for economic compensation and for reparation. The law was supplemented in 2018 by a law which empowered the creation and declaration of sites of historical memory. The reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 2017, incorporated specific provisions aimed at protecting the right of victims.
A Victims Unit had been created in the Public Prosecutor's Office and had competence in designing strategies for the care, protection and accompaniment of victims, witnesses to crimes and their families. The Unit provided emotional accompaniment to victims in the different instances of the process.
In 2013, a Prosecutor’s Office specialising in crimes against humanity had been created. The Office was granted jurisdiction in all criminal cases relating to violations of human rights which had occurred in the recent past, in response to another recommendation made by the Committee.
In March 2018, the Coordinating Cabinet of Policies for Victims and Regulations was created, which consolidated public policies and which unified criteria, programmes and services aimed at providing protection to victims and witnesses.
The National Institution of Human Rights was granted search and investigation competency into persons subject to enforced disappearance in the recent past. To carry out such an important and sensitive task, it had been granted the necessary human and financial resources, as well as special legal powers such as unrestricted access to the archives of the intelligence services, public and private institutions, and access to all public and private establishments. That showed inter-institutional cooperation, in line with the recommendations of the Committee.
Mr. Moerzinger said that Uruguay appeared before the Committee in an open and constructive spirit. The State sought to shed light on areas highlighted by the Committee, including harmonisation of legislation to comply with the Convention. Uruguay was aware that further improvement was needed, and looked forward to its dialogue with the Committee.
Questions by Committee Experts
JUAN JOSÉ LOPEZ ORTEGA, Committee Member and Country Rapporteur, said Uruguay’s definition of enforced disappearance was not in line with that of the Convention. Legislative gaps had been recognised at the last review in 2013. The Committee would like further information on house arrests, particularly for those over the age of 65. In 2013, the Committee had called on Uruguay to include habeas corpus in domestic law. Was there any follow-up to that? Why had the reform not been brought about? What plans were there for that in the immediate future? Which measures would be adopted into domestic legislation to ensure it was fully in line with the Convention?
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, commended Uruguay for the creation of the Prosecutor’s Office specialising in crimes against humanity, which was important for investigating the serious crimes of enforced disappearances.
Of the 38 cases before the Prosecutor’s office, only one had been termed enforced disappearance. The State party should investigate all enforced disappearances as such. Why was the crime of enforced disappearance not criminally charged as such? Were investigations panning out over time?
Many of those charged had died, meaning they remained unpunished. Could the delegation explain why it had taken such a long time to start investigations? What measures were being taken to improve the slow progress on those cases? How was the participation of victims ensured? Could information be provided on how free professional, technical, and legal aid was provided to those who needed it? What protocols were in place for that purpose? What resources did the Prosecutor’s Office have? What plans had been made to ensure the Office was fully equipped to address cases in the most expedited fashion?
Combating impunity and enforced disappearance was an obligation. Had the State contemplated tangible measures to speed up the cases from 1968 to 1985 to ensure that repeated use of appeals did not prevent the truth from being uncovered, and the perpetrators held responsible? What was the jurisprudence which the State had been implementing in regard to those crimes against humanity?
Did legal employees receive training on the Convention? It was important that the circumstances which had led to disappearances were clarified. The mandate of the National Human Rights Institution to carry out searches was recognised, but the Committee was concerned at difficulties obtaining files from the Ministry of Defense. Could the delegation provide more information as to why those archives had not all been transferred to the National Human Rights Institution?
The Committee had heard that in certain cases, no information was given on the whereabouts of the disappeared or their remains. What mechanisms had the State party taken to encourage the cooperation of people who might possess information which could assist with the search, without fear of reprisals? Time was the worst enemy when it came to search cases.
Did Uruguay have any plans to include mitigating circumstances within the penal code, which allowed anyone who had participated in enforced disappearances to receive a reduced sentence if they provided information on the disappearance?
How many people had the State recognised as disappeared, and under what circumstances had that happened? Could the identification of 44 people whose remains had been found and exhumed be confirmed?
What measures was the State taking to find disappeared persons outside the territory? Could detailed information on support to victims be provided? The Committee had taken note of the work which had started with the Uruguayan Air Force, which had incorporated new search technology which could help find areas where bodies had been buried. What actions had the State party taken to protect areas which could be of interest to the National Human Rights Institution? What sanctions were prepared for those who hindered the work of the National Human Rights Institution? What guarantees existed to ensure that searching continued until all persons subjected to enforced disappearance had been found?
JUAN JOSÉ LOPEZ ORTEGA, Committee Member and Country Rapporteur, asked for clarification on Uruguay’s definition of a victim of enforced disappearance. In cases where the family was the acting party because the disappeared person could not do so, they were acting in the interests of the disappeared person, as well as in their own interests. They were legally recognised with a right to act. The Committee recommended reform in that regard, and it still had not been done.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Uruguay had complied with the Convention criteria, and had a minimum sentence from 15 to 30 years outlined for disappearances. There needed to be margin for manoeuvre to address the situation appropriately. There hadn’t been convictions under enforced disappearances; one soldier had died during sentencing who otherwise would have been convicted under enforced disappearances. The Prosecutor’s Office ensured that cases progressed and had sanctioned lawyers who had spun out the process in order to slow things down. Victims were able to participate in proceedings. The victims or community of victims were constantly in touch with the Prosecutor’s Office, and they were kept fully apprised of any progress made in the legal proceedings. There was online, permanent communication with the National Human Rights Institution.
Habeas corpus was at the core of how the police and Prosecutors’ Office worked. In regard to the development of the notion of the victim, both the complainant, victim and family members could provide evidence. If the victim wanted to participate in the procedure, a public defender would be assigned to them, and if they did not, they would still be provided legal advice.
Archives held some digitised documents, around 70 terabytes’ worth. The archives on recently disappeared persons would be delivered shortly. There were many requests for information by different institutions of the State, including the National Human Rights Institution and the Ombudsman. The information being requested was held within the Ministry of Defence, and was provided to the requesting institutions.
Through a law on access to public information, any person could request the State to provide any information deemed important. Last year, documents had been found which had to do with the recent past, and they had been delivered to various bodies and then published on the website of the Ministry, for the general public.
Questions by Committee Experts
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked whether a clearer timeframe could be provided around the digitisation of the archives on recent disappeared persons? Could the delegation explain what actions the State party had taken to ensure that persons outside Uruguay were being identified?
Would a State policy to prevent enforced disappearances be drafted? What was the State doing with an eye to the future to prevent disappearances? Information had been received on the disappearance of children and teenagers from centres which were supposed to be protected by the State. Could more information be provided on the obligation to find those people and investigate those alleged disappearances? What tangible actions had been taken to establish what had happened?
JUAN JOSÉ LOPEZ ORTEGA, Committee Member and Country Rapporteur, referred to the “Pact of Silence” and said there needed to be a more proactive public appeal. People who had participated even “aindirectly in enforced disappearances seemed reluctant to participate; there needed to be a State call to act from the highest level. What was being envisaged State-wise to ensure cooperation from other sources? Enforced disappearances offended many people, including the families of the disappeared. All the definitions of victims, as per the Convention, hinged on the notion of harm as well as offence. If victims accepted reparation, did that mean they gave up any action against the State? Information had been received that persons who had been released after being disappeared were determined not to be disappeared anymore, and therefore were not granted reparation.
Educating children and young children was of key importance. How was the State addressing the past in the national curriculum?
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, asked if there were any protection measures for those who had given information on burial sites? What effect did the “Pact of Silence” have on the work of the State? What message was being passed? Someone who gave information on burial sites could possibly lead investigators to bodies; that was something that needed to be done.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that many people had disappeared in Uruguay over the years, including women, children, and older persons. In those cases, there were protocols to be followed. The Minister of the Interior had a register on searches carried out for those people. All involuntary disappearances were investigated. There was currently no State policy to build on past lessons in Uruguay. It was hoped that by December, the digitisation of files would have taken place. There had been increases made to the technical and administrative unit; currently, there were over 90 officers within that unit who implemented the strategic plan up to 2023.
Questions by Committee Experts
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Chair and Country Rapporteur, said that 197 people had been reported as disappeared; was that the final figure? What was the responsibility of the Prosecutor’s Office? Were those individual figures or class actions?
JUAN JOSÉ LOPEZ ORTEGA, Committee Member and Country Rapporteur, said he was under the impression that there was a technical challenge in the application of the penal code; why weren’t the charges of enforced disappearance applied?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the traditional concept of enforced disappearances was where someone was deprived of their liberty, or a body was not found. In 1972, a law had been established which transferred jurisdiction of the military courts. Many members of armed groups were tortured and condemned by the military courts. After the coup that year, all guarantees came tumbling down. Hundreds of victims in Uruguay had gone through clandestine centres or were disappeared through miliary units. It was important to strike a balance and establish truth.
Closing Remarks
ALVARO MOERZINGER, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations based in Geneva and head of delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue, saying it was a very sensitive topic. Concerns regarding enforced disappearances were a part of Uruguay’s national identity, and many State bodies tried to shed light on those situations. Every year in Uruguay, that topic was remembered with a great deal of emotion. The Convention was of prime importance, particularly when it came to protecting future victims. Mr. Moerzinger said the Committee’s comments had been spot-on and hoped that the State had met their obligations under the Convention.
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the fruitful exchange. The dialogue was a key step, and Mr. Alban Alencastro thanked Uruguay for their readiness in holding the dialogue. The Committee and Uruguay had a shared goal of guaranteeing the application of the Convention in Uruguay, and needed to act as allies to prevent enforced disappearances.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED.22.008E