|Keywords:||Argentina; Uruguay; human rights violations; military dictatorship; amnesty laws; Transitional Justice.; Social Sciences; Samhällsvetenskap|
|Full text PDF:||http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-113529|
This essay analyzes in a comparative manner, the cases of Argentina and Uruguay regarding the amnesty laws that both issued to members of the armed forces after the transition to democracy from the authoritarian regime, for violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship. The research seeks to understand the causes that have made the amnesty law in Argentina from 1986 and 1987, together with the presidential pardoning of 1989 to be declared unconstitutional in 2005 and 2007 by the Argentinian Supreme Court, while the Uruguayan amnesty law issued in 1986 is at the time when this research was made still in force. The focus of this study relies on four main actors that have made an impact on this issue: the Executive; the Supreme Court; the Inter-American system of Human Rights; and the human rights movement. Our research intakes a qualitative nature that is the most appropriate method for this kind of study. A comparative methodology is developed studying the cases of Argentina and Uruguay in order to outline similarities and differences between them both, which let us see the different variables that both cases have in an effort to better understand the causes that led to different outcomes regarding the present legal status of the amnesty laws. This essay utilizes as its theoretical framework, theories of Transitional Justice and Human Rights from below, which are applied to the material presented in both cases. In Argentina, the Supreme Court, the Executive, the human rights movement and the Inter-American system of Human Rights, have worked together in the last decade to abolish the amnesty laws and the pardoning in the country. The Supreme Court in Uruguay acting against the Executive power in the last time is seen as a keen factor to why the amnesty law is still in force today. Here, the referendums in 1989 and 2009 supporting the further upholding of the law influenced the decision of the Supreme Court, and also made a negative impact in the human rights movement.