JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Saturday, February 23, 2013

Uruguay high court declares dictatorship trials unconstitutional
Max Slater at 10:22 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Uruguay Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a 2011 law allowing for investigations into crimes committed during the country's 1973-1985 dictatorship is unconstitutional. Uruguay's legislature passed the law in 2011, allowing the government to investigate human rights violations that occurred during the 12-year dictatorship [Library of Congress backgrounder] and not subjecting these violations to a statute of limitations. The court struck down [Reuters report] the law because it found that two of the articles were unconstitutional, effectively restoring the nation's 1986 Expiry Law [text, in Spanish], which granted amnesty to military officials accused of human rights violations during the dictatorship era. The Expiry Law places in doubt 20 murder cases that have been brought against Uruguay's former dictator, Juan Maria Bordaberry [JURIST news archive].

Laws concerning Uruguay's dictatorship era have been the subject of judicial controversy in recent years. In 2011, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) [official website, in Spanish] condemned the Uruguayan government for its role in the abduction and death of an Argentinean woman in the 1970s, effectively overturning the country's amnesty law [JURIST report]. In 2010, the Uruguayan Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that amnesty granted for crimes committed by the country's 12-year dictatorship was unconstitutional. Months earlier, Bordaberry was sentenced to 30 years in prison [JURIST report] for his role in the country's 1973 military coup. Bordaberry was arrested in 2006 on charges of murder and was later charged with violating Uruguay's constitution [materials, in Spanish]. The Uruguay Supreme Court also addressed the Expiry Law in a 2009 ruling, finding it unconstitutional [JURIST report] as it applied to the case of Nibia Sabalsagaray, who was allegedly murdered by the military in 1974. The court concluded that the law violated separation of powers and constitutional sovereignty [El Pais report, in Spanish].




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Supreme Court rules on scope of federal agencies' jurisdiction
2:35 PM ET, May 20

 Supreme Court rules on foreign taxes
1:36 PM ET, May 20

 Supreme Court rules defendant not entitled to federal habeas relief
12:53 PM ET, May 20

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org