The president of Uruguay, José Mujica, sent a draft Law on Audiovisual Communication Services to the Congress yesterday. As it states in the bill, the law’s main purpose is “to regulate radio services, television and other audiovisual media” to “build a harmonious audiovisual system with a balanced and fair competition between operators.” The government defines Audiovisual Communication Services (SCA) as cultural services, that also have an economic and strategic role in national development, and therefore are a part of the public interest.

Mujica stated that: “it is the country’s duty to ensure universal access to SCA and contribute to the freedom of information, social inclusion, non-discrimination, the promotion of cultural diversity, education and recreation.”

Another fundamental aspect of the bill is the regulation of monopolies and oligopolies in the ownership and control of broadcasting services, as they “conspire against democracy by limiting the plurality and diversity which ensure the full exercise of the people’s right to information.”

The draft media law also advocates full transparency in the licensing process. It proposes a move from the current “precarious and revocable” to a system of concessions and authorisations that would be “time-bound and renewable.”

Additionally, the law will create an enforcement authority, called the Council of Audiovisual Communication (Consejo de Comunicación Audiovisual – CCA) whose tasks will be “to propose, implement, monitor and enforce compliance with the policies of the system.”

Another proposition is the establishment of minimum national production quotas, measures to regulate inappropriate-content-for-minors schedules and ensure the editorial freedom of expression and information, and above all the independence of the media. It also discusses journalists’ rights, including the possibility “to refuse to submit their name with an image, voice and content of their own that has been modified without their consent.”

The initiative consists of thirteen chapters and 183 articles, and will be debated first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate.

Argentina is no longer a world leader in beef exports. Of the countries that make up the trading block Mercosur, Argentina exports the least amount of beef, trailing behind the likes of Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

This is a startling decline. Back in 2005, Argentina was the third largest exporter of beef, shipping to more than 70 countries. Now it ranks 10th in the world. Mexico, which has half the amount of bovine stock, has overtaken it with Brazil coming in at number one.

According to the most recent statistics from the Economic Research Institute of the Socieded Rural Argentina (SRA), in 2012 Argentina exported only 183,000 tons of meat. Brazil and Uruguay far exceeded this number exporting 1.3m and 350,000 tons respectively.

According to experts, the decline can be traced back to 2006 which saw an increasingly interventionist politics thought to have had a negative impact on the markets. Luis Etchevehere, president of the SRA had this to say, “the current government has destroyed the profitability cattle. We are now in eleventh place… [behind even] Mexico which doesn’t traditionally export.”

More specifically, Nieves Pascuzzi, an economist at SRA, blamed the drop in exports on the government’s decision to keep the price of meat in the domestic market low – thereby linking the amount of beef available for export to local monthly demand. He also cited the “lack of competitivity in exports” and the “over valued exchange rate” as important factors in the decline. Bovine stock itself is also on the decline thanks to poor results reported by fridge owners.

Argentina went from having 57m heads of cattle in 2006 to 51.7m in 2012, whilst the rest of the region increased its herds. Since 2005, 130 fridges have been shut down and more than 15,600 workers have been laid off. Public opinion in the agriculture sector is glum.

The head of the Agrarian Federation announced that a protest is bing organised in Junín for the 22nd of this month.

The views expressed in this article belong to the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Argentina Independent.

During my first trip to the country in 2007, one interviewee wryly joked that justice in Uruguay had two speeds: “slow, and very slow.” Since then, however, things have changed; so much so, that in the first four months of 2013 the flurry of events and developments regarding prosecutions for the crimes of the dictatorship has, at times, been difficult to keep up with.

In our earlier pieces on the transfer of judge Mariana Mota and the sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice in February and March this year, we voiced several concerns including possible delays to the numerous human rights cases that Judge Mota was in charge of, as well as the Supreme Court’s blatant disregard for international human rights law provisions. A further fear was that the traditionally conservative Uruguayan judiciary would adhere to these signals from the Supreme Court and passively resign itself to closing down all investigations and prosecutions into past human rights violations. Indeed, during the 1980s and 1990s, only a handful of judges and prosecutors dared to defy the structure of impunity embodied in the Ley de Caducidad amnesty law. Those who did paid a high personal and professional price, as in the cases of Alberto Reyes and Alejando Recarey, who were consequently transferred to different jurisdictions in 1997 and 2003 respectively.

History Repeating Itself?

The beginning of 2013 had begun to feel like a serious bout of déjà vu. Out of the fifteen unconstitutionality appeals lodged with the Supreme Court’s regarding law 18.831, the tribunal has already deliberated on eight, judging in all but one in favour of the crimes being subjected to statutes of limitations and therefore being shelved invoking the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. Supreme Court Judge Jorge Ruibal Pino, furthermore, stated in early April that none of the cases of past human rights violations would prosper and that they would face “a wall” in the Supreme Court. In addition, criminal judge Roberto Timbal managed to archive a 1978 political murder by applying the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, which deemed it not a crime against humanity but a common crime. Judge Fanny Canessa likewise shelved another case of past human rights violations a few days later siding with the Supreme Court’s stance. All these developments were met with pithy mocking by one lawyer who, playing with the country’s official name – Oriental Republic of Uruguay – called it la República Impune del Uruguay (the Unpunished Republic of Uruguay), highlighting once again the consolidation of impunity for past atrocities.

Recent developments in the country were unsurprisingly met by a wave of international condemnations, including by Amnesty International, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Center for Justice and International Law, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. More recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also unequivocally rejected the Supreme Court’s argument regarding the statute of limitations and went as far as saying that it constituted an obstacle to the full compliance with the 2011 verdict of the Inter-American Court in the Gelman vs. Uruguay case.

Domestic Challenges to Impunity

While international criticism of these developments is foreseeable, there are signs of apparent winds of change blowing from within the judiciary itself. In a significant twist in the fight against impunity in Uruguay, judges and prosecutors have begun to take a stand against the closure of investigations into the dictatorship’s crimes, throwing down the gauntlet the authority of the Supreme Court.

On the very same day the Supreme Court released its first sentence on the statutory limitations (February 22, 2013), the Appeals Court No. 1 unanimously argued that investigations into the crimes committed during the dictatorship should continue so that those crimes would not go unpunished; further, in a second sentence, the same tribunal contended that, the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court notwithstanding, Uruguay was obliged to prosecute and punish such atrocities in compliance with the Gelman verdict.

More recently, in the aftermath of Ruibal Pino’s combative statements, five criminal public prosecutors presented an appeal against four of the five Supreme Court judges calling for them to be put aside in future sentences relating to the crimes of the dictatorship. The prosecutors maintained that Ruibal Pino had “pre-judged” in the cases – violating the principle that bodies can review their decisions and listen to other arguments – and as such, he and the other three judges should no longer adjudicate on them. Such a direct challenge against the Supreme Court is an unprecedented step and it is unclear what will happen next; normally, judges from the Appeals Court are selected to temporarily substitute Supreme Court judges. However, this is the first time that four out of five judges are being called upon to recuse themselves from considering cases.

Over the past couple of days, two criminal court judges have also gone against the Supreme Court. Judge Beatriz Larrieu – who has taken over Mota’s tribunal – rejected the petition to close down the investigation into the death and torture of Norma Cedrés that occurred between 1975 and 1978. In her resolution, Larrieu had a two-fold argument. First, she claimed that those crimes amounted to crimes against humanity and were therefore not subject to statutes of limitations; second, the judge argued that the Ley de Caducidad had blocked all investigations into human rights crimes since 1986 and therefore the statutory limitation should only begin to be counted from 2009, when the law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just a few days later, judge Juan Carlos Fernández Lecchini – without deeming it necessary to deliberate on the issue of crimes against humanity – considered that the 1977 assassination of Julio Castro by the dictatorship had not expired given that between 1985 and 2005 the state had been unable to prosecute the crimes of the dictatorship due to the application of the Ley de Caducidad.

While it is still too early to say whether these attempts will be enough to guarantee that past crimes will not go unpunished, it is nonetheless important to recognise the significance of these developments, which suggest that things are changing in Uruguay. Following in the steps of judges Mota, Reyes, Recarey – as well as those of other individuals such as former prosecutor Mirtha Guianze and human rights lawyer Pablo Chargoñia who led landmark prosecutions such as that into the disappearance of Elena Quinteros in 2002 and 2003 – judges and prosecutors in Uruguay are no longer willing to silently tolerate impunity and are ready to fight for justice.

Dr Francesca Lessa is a specialist in issues of justice and human rights in Uruguay based at the Latin American Centre and St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford.

Pierre-Louis Le Goff is a research assistant at the Latin American Centre, University of Oxford, and a member of the committee for Crimes Against Humanity at the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Uruguay will hold a popular referendum over whether to repeal a law legalising abortion approved by the Senate in October 2012.

Opponents of legal abortion in Uruguay successfully collected more than the 52,000 signatures required to begin the process of calling for an initial, non-mandatory referendum over whether to revoke the Sexual and Reproductive Health Law, which legalises abortions performed in the first 14 weeks after gestation.

According to Wilfredo Penco, the vice president of The Electoral Court, the required number of signatures was even exceeded – the opponents turned in around 67,000 signatures. The Electoral Court now has 45 days to announce the date of the referendum that will not be mandatory. “Because of the high number of signatures submitted, the preparations of polling stations, polls and so on, already began a few days ago,” Penco stated.

Some sources say the referendum will be held either on Sunday 16th or 23rd June. If at least 25% of the electorate (653,000 citizens) support the vote repeal, a second national referendum will be called within the next four months – this time with compulsory voting.

The law states that Uruguayan and foreign women with at least one year of residence in the country can ask to terminate their pregnancies within the first 12 weeks of gestation without fear of legal reprisals. This can be extended to 14 weeks in rape cases and goes on without restrictions for pregnancies involving fetus malformations or that endanger the mother’s life.

Uruguay was the first country in South America to legalise abortion and the second in Latin America after Cuba.

The Customs Office (DNA) of Uruguay has implemented a “zero kilo” restriction on goods brought into Uruguay by those who travel to Argentina and return in the same day. The stated aim is to protect local businesses and jobs under threat from cheaper Argentine imports.

The Uruguayan peso has strengthened by around 25% against the Argentine peso since July 2012. Menawhile, the sizeable discrepancy between the official Argentine exchange and the informal ‘blue’ market has also provided opportunities for Uruguayan citizens to take advantage by purchasing goods, often with US dollars, in the neighbouring country.

The measure will have the greatest effect on those areas that sit at the river border of the two countries, namely Colonia, Carmelo, Nueva Palmira, Fray Bentos, Paysandú, Salto and Bella Unión.

The measure, which went into effect today, follows the restriction on transporting foods across the border this weekend at the Salto Grande border.

El Pais, the largest newspaper in Montevideo, claims that there is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the new measure. One concern is that for the measure to properly implemented, it would require naval forces to patrol the passage of goods across the border, which was not previously outlined as one of their responsibilities.

The publication also noted how much this implementation would affect some of its citizens, stating, “Without question, this measure is going to affect hundreds of families in Salto.” The publication spoke with a man identified only as Ernesto from the El Cerro region, who regularly used the cheaper Argentine prices to his advantage.

“Every day I go to Concordia, up to two times when the sales are good, and with what I sell, I make an average of some UY$30,000 each month, sometimes more, others less,” he said.

The Argentine government has shown its displeasure after private comments made by Uruguayan president José Mujica about the Kirchners yesterday were captured by a nearby microphone.

Mujica initiated a diplomatic scandal when he was recorded saying, “That old woman is worse than the one-eyed man,” referring to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and former president Nestor Kirchner. “He was more of a politician, she’s stubborn,” Mujica added.

The whispered comment was picked up by the microphone and then redistributed by Argentine news channels and social networks.

A few hours later, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman sent a written complaint to Uruguayan ambassador Guillermo Pomi about the comments, saying “The Foreign Ministry would like to tell the Uruguayan Embassy of the deep discomfort created by President José Mujica’s statements regarding late President Néstor Kirchner”

The letter continued: “Argentina will not tolerate these degrading statements that offend the memory and office of a dead person, who is unable to reply or defend himself, particularly made by someone whom Kirchner considered his friend.”

The ministry added that President Fernández will not be responding to the comments. Mujica said that he will not apologise as the comment was meant to be private. Today he reiterated that Uruguay’s relationship with Argentina could “not be separated by anything or anyone.”

The Uruguayan Senate voted yesterday, 2nd April, to pass a bill legalising marriage between couples of the same sex.

After seven hours of debate, the bill won unanimous approval by senators of the Frente Amplio (FA) party and partial endorsement by those of the opposition parties, Partido Nacional and Partido Colorado. The legislation passed with a total of 23 to 8 votes in the Congressional upper house.

The legislation recognises marriage between homosexual couples by defining how the state constitutes marriage. The law states, “Civil matrimony is the permanent union, arranged under law, of two people of different or the same sex.” The bill also includes modifications of the country’s Civil Code to equalise the marital status of same-sex couples with that of heterosexuals, by replacing the words “man” and “woman” with “spouse”, for example.

The same-sex marriage proposal will now be returned to the Lower House for approval, and if it passes, will then be signed into law by President José Mujica, who has indicated support for the bill.

The Catholic Church has announced its disapproval of the Senate’s decision, stating that the measure devalues the institution of marriage. Senator Monica Xavier responded to these claims stating that the bill does not, in fact, diminish the sanctity of marriage nor have to do with religion at all, stating, “Here we are speaking about ‘rights,’ with capital letters. Rights that were denied and repressed for a long time, and which a society that is trying to be modern and inclusive necessarily must recognise, to advance in equality.”

Since 2007 Uruguay has begun approving more rights for homosexual people, including legalising enlistment in the armed forces and allowing for same-sex civil unions. In 2009 Uruguay became the first country in the region to allow for homosexual couples to adopt children.

If the lower chamber of Congress approves the bill, Uruguay will become the 12th country in the world to legalise gay marriage and the second in Latin America, after Argentina did so in 2010.

The views expressed in this article belong to the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Argentina Independent.

A couple of weeks ago, we argued in an earlier piece that by transferring Judge Mariana Mota, Uruguay’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) had shown itself determined to derail efforts to deliver justice for the military’s crimes, despite the revocation of a 25-year-old amnesty law in October 2011.

On 22nd February a sentence by the same court regrettably proved our assertion correct. The ruling judged as unconstitutional articles two and three of Law 18,831 – a bill enacted by the Uruguayan Parliament which, for the first time since 1986, allowed the judiciary to freely investigate the widespread and systematic human rights abuses committed by the dictatorship between 1973 and 1985.

With the recent sentence, the SCJ has unmistakably aligned itself with the closing down of all investigations into the atrocities of the dictatorship and, coupled with Mota’s transfer to a civil tribunal, it once again sends a strong signal in favour of impunity.

The Court’s verdict centred on its qualification of the abuses of the dictatorship as constituting ‘common crimes’ as typified under domestic criminal law and not amounting to crimes against humanity, as stipulated by Law 18,831 and numerous provisions in international human rights treaties voluntarily ratified by Uruguay. Due to the labelling as common crimes, the atrocities committed between 1973 and 1985 are again susceptible to the application of statutes of limitations, establishing a cut-off point of 26 years and 8 months by which crimes
could be investigated and brought to trial, that is to say before 1st November 2011. The sentence also invoked the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, which guarantees that a person cannot be accused of a crime that was not considered as such when the event took place.

Undeniably, the decision constitutes a significant step back in the struggle for truth and justice, showing a blatant disregard for international legal jurisprudence concerning human rights violations and international treaties to which Uruguay is party.

But beyond this, it represents an unequivocal statement by the Court regarding how it judges the dictatorship’s crimes. At worst, one could argue that it condones such crimes; at best, it serves to downplay their seriousness.

In order to put the decision into perspective, it is useful to reflect on exactly what the SCJ considers ‘common crimes’. First, it does not view as a crime against humanity prolonged torture, which during the dictatorship often involved the electrocution of various parts of the body (including testicles) as well as
sexual violence often in the presence of spouses or partners. Second, it does not consider a crime against humanity the forced disappearance of its own citizens, whose remains – in an unsuccessful attempt to deny not only the victims’ deaths but also their lives – were purposely hidden in unmarked graves or incinerated, never to be found by their families. Nor does the SCJ regard as a crime against humanity prolonged imprisonment, often in solitary confinement for years on end without charge or trial.

Uruguay’s highest legal body does not judge such abuses, committed in a systematic plan to destroy the country’s social fabric, as crimes that will have a profound and lasting effect on the whole of society. Rather, like other ‘common crimes,’ they should be swept under the carpet after a certain amount of time has
elapsed, to be officially forgotten.

The trouble is, as has been evidenced throughout Latin America’s recent history, such crimes are not easily forgotten. Just as the Court’s sentence minimises the abhorrent brutality of the dictatorship’s crimes, it simultaneously negates the legitimacy of victims’ demands for truth and justice. The Court makes no mention of well-recognised guarantees enshrined in international law, such as family members’ right to information about the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones; the right to legal redress and access to justice; and the right to reparations for their suffering.

It is extremely regrettable that the SCJ has delivered such a verdict just months after the infamous Ley de Caducidad was finally repealed. Worse still is the Court’s complete disregard for international human rights provisions since Nuremberg and in particular the condemnation Uruguay received just two years ago from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the regime’s crimes.

The SCJ is sending a strong message as to its view of the country’s past, its present, and the country’s future. If it continues down this path, Uruguay will find itself on the wrong side of history.

Pierre-Louis Le Goff is a research assistant at the Latin American Centre, University of Oxford, and a member of the committee for Crimes Against Humanity at the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (APDH), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Dr Francesca Lessa is a specialist in issues of justice and human rights in Uruguay based at the Latin American Centre and St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford.

A Dutch NGO has put forward Uruguay’s president, José Mujica, as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. His nomination stems from his work towards the decriminalisation of marijuana and his fight against drug-trafficking.

Frans Bronkhorst, head of the NGO Drugs Peace Institute visited Montevideo last week to secure the presidents seal of approval. He went on to say that “Mujica is the first person in the world who has proposed an end to this war [on drugs] that serves no one.”

He also outlined the new drug paradigm created by Uruguay’s president. The “war on drugs” he claims has been replaced with the “peace of drugs”. June of last year saw proposals to decriminalise the drug, and for state control and regulation of marijuana imports. The initiative also sought to establish the government’s involvement and running of the “storing, commercialisation, and distribution of marijuana and its derivatives” giving it a monopoly.

The Uruguayan legislator Sebastián Sabini however argued that the president should not be considered a candidate for the prize solely on the basis of his drug lesgislation. This is due in part to the fact that in December last year the president asked legislators to suspend the debate following a national survey in which found 64% of citizens to be against the proposals.

The debate is set to be re-opened later this month following the recess. Sabini believes the nomination ought to be more robust in order to include of the presidents’ talents including his “spirit of harmony” and his “search for consensus.”

Bronkhorst also cites the presidents “austerity” and “anti-capitalist” sentiment as motives for the nomination.

On April 4, the government of Uruguay will begin holding forums and debates about its project to nationalise the production and distribution of marijuana.

There will be 90 days of debate about the project in 19 departments of the country. After this period, the text of the bill will go to the parliament of Uruguay.

According to information from the agency TELAM, they are considering allowing drug users up to 40 grams of marijuana per month. Also, every Uruguayan of legal age will be able to have up to 6 plants of cannabis for personal use.

The government of Uruguay hopes to generate framework for the legal cultivation, distribution and consumption of marijuana in the country.

The idea of debating the project in all of the country was carried out by president José Mujica at the end of last year.

The seminars and debates that will take place for three months, confirmed by the daily paper La República (The Republic) by the president of National Drug Collective, Julio Calzada.

The rough draft of the law has been in the process of being developed by the Uruguayan congress since last November.

This proposal seeks to allow the government to identify drug users without them being identified publicly. Also, it promotes the creation of public organisations to control the substance, as well as consumer clubs.

In this sense, Calzada clarified that the new legal framework will try to make it so “all will be strictly regulated by the state and mark a new plan against the consumption of drugs.”

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar, the AMARC-ALC news agency.