PREPARED STAtement of Robert K. GOLDMAN, Acting DEPUTY DEAN AND PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

My name is Robert K. Goldman. I am Louis C. James

Professor and Acting Deputy Dean at The American University Law School. I also am a director or trustee of the Americas Watch, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, the International Human Rights Law Group, the International Secretariat of Jurists for Amnesty in Uruguay and the Washington Office on Latin America--all non-governmental organizations which have carefully monitored the human rights situation in Uruguay. addition, I served as Special Rapporteur to the OAS' Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in connection with the preparation of its 1978 Report on The Status of Human Rights in Uruguay, and in December 1978 visited Uruguay on behalf of the National Council of Churches of Christ, U.S.A., the International Federation of the

In

The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of these organizations.

CIDH OEA/Ser. L/V/11.43, doc. 19 corr. 1, 31 enero 1978 (1978 Uruguay Report)

Rights of Man and the International Movement of Catholic Jurists to investigate human rights violations in that

country.

My testimony today will focus on the widespread practice of torture in Uruguay and what the U.S. Congress might do to combat this illicit phenomenon. Before so doing, however, I think it is useful to briefly trace Uruguay's transition from democracy to military dictatorship and to highlight the military government's record of gross human rights violations from 1973 until the present time.

Transition from Civilian to Military Government

Until the late 1960's, Uruguay enjoyed an excellent international reputation for its stable democratic institutions, advanced social welfare policies, and its strong commitment to international and regional efforts to promote and to protect human rights. In 1968, the country's political stability was severely threatened by the emergence of the Movement of National Liberation ("Tupamaros"), an urban guerrilla group whose actions, including bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations, became progressively more violent in the early 1970s. With the failure of its police to wipe out the Tupamaros by September 1971, Uruguay's civilian government entrusted its military with that task. In support of the military's efforts to destroy the guerrillas, the

government proclaimed a "State of Internal War" on April 15, 1972 and the elected Congress enacted, at the request of the Executive, various measures that temporarily suspended rights guaranteed in the 1967 Constitution. On

July 10, 1972, the Congress enacted "The Law of National Security."

With the total destruction of the Tupamaros and their organization by the military's own admission in early 1973, the explicit purpose underlying the Congress' approval of these extraordinary measures was effectively vitiated. However, rather than moving to restore the

exercise of these suspended rights, Uruguay's President, backed by the armed forces, but without the approval of the Congress, decreed on June 1, 1973 an indefinite suspension of various constitutional rights.

The military's insistence on an increasingly direct role in political decision-making culminated in the events of June 27, 1973. On that day, Uruguay's President, supported by the armed forces, illegally dissolved the elected Congress and all locally elected legislative bodies and transferred the Congress' legislative powers to a newly created Council of State, whose

"This law, which continues in effect today, suspends certain rights of persons charged with "subversive activities" and transferred from civil to military courts jurisdiction over civilians charged with such security offenses. This law also superseded the declaration of "the State of Internal War."

members were nominated by the President of the

Republic. Finally, on June 12, 1976, the Armed Forces removed from office the elected President and installed a "provisional" President. In July, 1981, the armed forces designated retired General Gregorio Alvarez as

President.

Their decision was rubber stamped on August

15 by the Council of the Nation.

The Military Governmental Structure

Since June 27, 1983, Uruguay's military government has adopted a series of legal measures that have resulted in the complete destruction of constitutional government, of the rule of law, and of virtually all individual rights guaranteed in the 1967 Constitution despite the fact that the situation that precipitated the adoption of measures temporarily suspending basic individual rights

had ceased to exist.

Specifically, through a series of so-called

Institutional

Institutional Acts, the military has transformed and taken control of the country's three branches of government and entire administrative apparatus. Act No. 2 created the Council of the Nation, composed of the 25 members of the Council of State and the 24 officers comprising the high command of the armed forces (Junta de Oficiales Generales). This body appoints the country's President, the members of the Council of State, and all other important governmental authorities.

The

military has an effective veto power since a two-thirds majority is needed for all Council decisions. Under Institutional Act No. 8, the civilian judiciary similarly lost its independence. Two military officers are members of the Court of Justice, successsor to the Supreme Court, and a new Ministry of Justice, established by Institutional Act No. 3, acts as a "liaison" between the judiciary and the military controlled executive power. The Military Government's Human Rights Record (1973-1980) All of these measures have enabled Uruguay's

military government to commit gross violations of the most basic human rights with utter impunity for the past ten years.

Since 1973, all constitutional safeguards, including habeas corpus, have been suspended. Thousands of suspected "subversives" have been tried by military courts without due process and imprisoned for such crimes as "insulting the morale of the armed forces" and "disrespect to military authorities." The great majority have been tried for acts, whatever the date of the offense, that were legal under preexisting laws. Hundreds of others have been administratively detained without charge or trial for months, even years without any legal recourse.

ing

Since 1974, over 100 Uruguayan citizens, includ

9 children and pregnant women, have disappeared both