Impunity, Accountability and Public Participation: Uruguay's Evolving Experience of Amnesty Laws
Abstract
Uruguay’s transition from dictatorial rule in the 1980s provides a unique case study to explore how contrasting forms of amnesty legislation operate within political transition, and to analyze how civil society groups influence and respond to amnesties. In charting the history of amnesties in Uruguay, this paper will begin by providing a brief overview of the circumstances that gave rise to military rule, the consequences of the dictatorship on society, and the dynamics of Uruguay’s negotiated political transition. The analysis will focus in particular on the contrasting debates on amnesty for political prisoners and for state officials. It will explore the scope and impact of each amnesty law. The article will then analyze civil society’s response to the 1986 amnesty for human rights violations, which included launching legal challenges before national and international courts and using constitutional provisions to trigger referendums on the constitutionality of the amnesty law. This article will argue that Uruguay provides an important case study that highlights how civil society can engage with the amnesty issue, and how the wider population responds. Furthermore, the experience of the amnesty laws in Uruguay illustrates how the scope of amnesty laws can change over time through new interpretations in response to changing political contexts and legal developments.