Accordingly, the Uruguayan military's perception of

subversion encompassed not only those who shared the

ideology of the Tupamaros, but inevitably came to include all those who peacefully opposed or who simply did not share the government's aims and methods. Oppression became generalized and indiscriminate. Individuals were

imprisoned, tortured or killed not for what they had done, but for what they thought, professed or believed. Given this climate, the military also regarded the defenders of political prisoners as subversives.

Torture soon became a central feature of the Uruguayan military's brutal and frenzied struggle against internal subversion. The principal casualty of the military's actions over these past ten years has been human dignity and the individual liberties of Uruguay's citizenry. If the ethical and moral values of JudeoChristian thought affirm the worth and dignity of man as an individual, it is difficult to envisage a doctrine in its application that is so exquisitely antithetical to, indeed, utterly destructive of, the very values this perverse doctrine purports to champion.

The Status of Torture under International Law

The prohibition of torture is today a peremptory norm of general international law ("Jus cogens") which absolutely and unconditionally binds all states and authorities claiming to exist in international law. The

exceptional legal character of this prohibition derives from international and regional agreements, international custom and general principles of law, as well as from

numerous multilateral resolutions and declarations proscribing torture absolutely.

For example, the right to the physical integrity of the person is among the specifically nonderogable rights in every international and regional human rights instruments* and is accorded similar protection under the 1949

Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols thereto. A state party to one of these human rights treaties, as Uruguay is to the Covenant and its Option Protocol, violates the prohibition against torture if it is perpetrated by government agents or persons acting under color of law. Further, even if a state is not a party to one of these treaties, it will nonetheless be responsible for violating this peremptory norm of international law if, as a matter of state policy, it practices, encourages or condones torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the commission of such acts by members of the armed forces against protected persons during an international armed conflict would constitute "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conven

* See Articles 27, 4 & 15 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively.

tions. And their commission by such persons during a

non-international armed conflict would violate Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions or Articles 4 to 6 of Protocol II.

The Role of Congress in Responding to Torture

As some members of this Subcommittee might recall, the Congress, with strong bipartisan support, began in the late 1970s to attach human rights requirements to virtually all U.S. foreign assistance programs. For example, in 1976, Congress amended the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to include training in human rights as an express purpose of U.S. international Military Education and Training programs. That same year, the Congress

amended Section 502B of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act to prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, military aid and arms sales to governments which engage "in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights"--the identical standard incorporated in other amendments to foreign assistance laws. Section 502B defines the term "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" to expressly include, inter alia, "torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Unfortunately, some members of Congress and, particularly, officials of the current Administration have

:

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.