Human Rights News
HRW Documents on Argentina FREE    Join the HRW Mailing List 
Argentina: Senate Votes to Annul Amnesty Laws

(Washington, D.C., August 21, 2003) -- The Argentine Senate’s vote to annul the country’s amnesty laws is a major victory for justice, Human Rights Watch said today. The vote to strike down the laws, held on Thursday morning, was 43 to 7 with one abstention.


“The feeling of Argentine society is overwhelming that the amnesty laws should never be applied again. For far too long, they have barred the prosecution of terrible crimes, keeping thousands of families in Argentina from seeing justice done.”

José Miguel Vivanco
Executive Director
Americas Division
Human Rights Watch


 

Related Material

Argentina: Holding Rights Abusers Accountable
HRW Press Release, August 14, 2003

Argentina: Supreme Court Should Resist Army Pressure
HRW Press Release, March 12, 2003


“The feeling of Argentine society is overwhelming that the amnesty laws should never be applied again,” said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. “For far too long, they have barred the prosecution of terrible crimes, keeping thousands of families in Argentina from seeing justice done.”

The “Full Stop” and “Due Obedience” laws were introduced in 1986 and 1987 to quell a military revolt against prosecutions for human rights crimes committed during Argentina’s “dirty war.” Thousands of Argentines “disappeared” when their country was under military rule from 1976 until 1983.

The Full Stop Law prevented the hearing of cases filed with the courts after a deadline of 60 days. The Due Obedience Law granted automatic immunity to all members of the military except those in positions of command.

The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the Argentine legislature, voted to annul the laws a week ago.

Federal courts declared the laws unconstitutional in 2001, in rulings that were appealed to the Supreme Court. Although the Court has had jurisdiction over the case for some time, it has yet to rule on the laws’ constitutionality.