lost sight of the purposes which prompted the Congress to enact these human rights laws. These purposes are set forth in Section 502B which declares, in part, that a principal goal of U.S. foreign policy, in accordance with our obligations under the U.N. charter and "in keeping with our constitutional heritage and traditions," shall be "to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries." It also directs the President "to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance human rights and avoid identification of the U.S., through such programs, with governments which deny to their people internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in violation of international law or in contravention of the policy of the United States as expressed in this section or otherwise."

This is a sound and enduring statement of U.S. foreign policy goals. The engrafting of human rights conditions on U.S. foreign aid and security assistance programs not only poses no conflicts for our national security interests, but actually serves to promote those interests in the long term. There is nothing more detrimental to U.S. security interests and its international image than our aiding, training and supplying the armed forces of a repressive regime who, particularly in the

midst of an internal armed conflict, use that assistance

in systematic disregard of basic humanitarian law

guarantees.

Like it or not, how these foreign governments use our assistance reflects both on our government and on us as a people. If they murder, torture and rape, we risk becoming identified with their actions both at home and abroad. No useful political or U.S. security interest can be served by such an identification.

Section 502 (B) and the other human rights amendments are the Supreme Law of this land. As such, the executive branch is constitutionally obliged to comply with and faithfully execute the unambiguous standards set forth in these laws. If the Congress is indeed serious about the Executive's compliance, then there simply is no need for additional legislation concerning the bilateral relations of the United States with governments that practice torture.

Apart from inducing the Executive's compliance with these laws, the Congress should support efforts by internatinal and regional bodies and by non-governmental organizations aimed at preventing and abolishing torture. Specifically, this Subcommittee should urge passage in both houses of Congress of resolutions endorsing the 12-Point Program For the Preventing of Torture adopted by Amnesty International last October.

Most importantly, this Subcommittee should urge the
Senate to consent to the principal human rights

conventions signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, all
of which contain express provisions on torture. As the
National Policy Panel of the United Nations Association
of the U.S.A. in its Report of December 1979 observed
"[i]t is important that the United States incorporate
evolving conceptions of rights into its own
jurisprudence, particularly as it so often urges other
governments to accept enlarged standards of human
rights.*

Ratification will not only dissipate the embarrassing contradiction between our failure to formally subscribe to these conventions and our espousal of the basic rights guaranteed therein, but will enable the United States to participate in the organs established under these conventions to promote, protect, and fashion regional and international human rights. Finally, the Subcommittee should call on the Executive branch to support the draft Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and, when finalized, to submit that instrument to the Senate for its advise and consent.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.

United Nations Association of the United States of America, United States Foreign Policy and Human Rights at 40 (1979).

Mr. YATRON. Thank you, Professor Goldman. Before we go on to the next witness, I would like to say that we will start using the 5minute rule here. If you go a little bit beyond, we will understand, but I respectfully request that you try to keep it to 5 minutes.

Our next witness will be Alejandro Artucio. Mr. Artucio will you please proceed?

STATEMENT OF ALEJANDRO ARTUCIO, FROM URUGUAY

Mr. ARTUCIO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor. I am a citizen of Uruguay and a lawyer by profession. Since 1974, I have worked as a legal adviser with the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva.

The account of my detention and torture in Uruguay must be understood in the context of the fact that I was persecuted solely for the exercise of my professional obligation as a lawyer in demanding a fair trial for defendants.

Prior to my detention in Uruguay, I had practiced law for some years. In 1968, I began defending individuals accused of political offenses. Since that time, emergency security measures have been in force in Uruguay. Under the framework of these security measures, which have become routine during the last 16 years, violations of fundamental rights in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural spheres have systematically taken place.

It is during this period that torture moved from being an isolated phenomenon to becoming a systematic and widespread practice. Torture continues to be practiced in Uruguay today with impunity by both the armed forces and the police. Torture is practiced to obtain information, to provoke confessions, to punish, and to intimidate.

The evidence to support this allegation is abundant. It has been confirmed by hundreds of statements from victims as well as by testimonies from international observers including those of Amnesty International.

In Uruguay, ill treatment does not end with interrogation. The condition under which prisoners must live and their treatment in military prisons can be considered nothing less than cruel, inhuman and degrading.

During 1970 and 1971, I continued to provide legal representation to political prisoners. It was during this period that I also began to make public denunciations of torture. As a result of these activities, I began to receive death threats including threats against the lives of our children. The threats were followed by action. On three occasions our house was bombed with explosives; assassination attempts were made on my life.

Mr. YATRON. Mr. Artucio, I hate to interrupt but could you please pull the mike a little closer so that we can hear you a little clearer? Thank you.

Mr. ARTUCIO. I'm sorry. In response to the situation of deep economic crisis and social unrest, of violence and counterviolence, and increasing urban guerrilla activities by the Tupamaros, the Government declared a state of internal war in April 1972 in violation of the Constitution.

37-536 0-84-5

The armed forces were granted wider powers and began to play an increasing role in the political process. Military tribunals were given jurisdiction to try civilians in political cases. Lawyers were harassed and intimidated in their work with military tribunals, and defense rights were limited. Lawyers themselves became victims of repression; arrests were made under the provision of the state of emergency which allowed the executive to detain individuals without judicial order.

In June 1972 I was arrested. I was taken to the Central Police Station where I was held incommunicado in a dark cell with no light or bed, with only the clothes I wore at the time of my arrest. The floor was wet, and they gave me nearly nothing to eat. I was interrogated in an attempt to obtain confessions against other lawyers, judges, and members of the Parliament.

Five days later I was delivered to the army. Hooded and handcuffed, I was taken away by members of the army. It was during this trip that the physical violence began and I was beaten by members of the army.

When we finally arrived at our destination, infantry battalion No. 1, still handcuffed and hooded, the torture continued with punches, kicks, and beatings. After some time which was impossible to estimate, I was forced to stand in a rigid position for a prolonged period. If I moved, I was beaten. During this entire time, I was kept hooded. To be hooded, Mr. Chairman, is more than a physical deprivation; it is to lose all sense of time, to not know if one is alone, being watched, safe or in danger, or whether the sun shines day after day.

I was later taken to see the doctor of the military unit. During the course of the medical examination, I remained hooded. Given my broken ribs, the doctor indicated that I was in no condition to be interrogated anymore. When we left, I was again placed in a standing position still hooded.

The next morning, that is ten hours later, the torture started once again. This time, I was subjected for the first time to the "submarine." This torture method entailed near asphyxiation by means of submersion of the head and body into a vat of water filled with vomit and urine, as Dr. Goldman just explained.

During that time interrogation continued. This session lasted a long period of time. The worst of all was the sensation of asphyxiation. The handcuffs had been fitted tightly around my wrists so each time I resisted, the handcuff created more pressure, further damaging seriously my wrists. The pressure of the water on the blindfold allowed the bandage to loosen, and for several seconds, I was able to see my torturers.

The torture sessions continued for 3 days with only short periods for rest. During my entire period of detention I was never permitted medical treatment of any kind, not even x rays. I was kept isolated in a small cell.

Some weeks later I was again tortured, since I refused to sign a statement that had been prepared by my torturers in my presence, but in which they inserted questions and gave answers as if they were mine.