Worried that the men who committed some of Argentina’s most heinous human rights abuses could be freed from jail years early, on Wednesday last week hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the country’s streets.
The demonstrations were in response to an Argentine Supreme Court ruling this month that reduced the sentence of a man convicted of crimes against humanity during the country’s military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983.
The court’s decision led to a flood of requests for the same leniency from others imprisoned for kidnapping, torture and murder.
Illustration: Mountain People
Advocates said that the ruling could pave the way for the early release of some of the era’s most notorious offenders.
However, widespread repudiation of the ruling by the public, culminating in the day of protest, which organizers said had drawn half a million people in Buenos Aires alone, forced an uncharacteristically quick and united response from the nation’s political leaders.
After just two days of debate, the Argentine Congress passed a bill intended to prevent any shortening of prison terms for those sentenced for crimes against humanity.
The vote was nearly unanimous, almost unheard-of in the country’s divided political landscape.
Hours before the protests began, Argentine President Mauricio Macri also came out against the decision, saying he was “against any tool that favors impunity.”
His administration had initially emphasized the need to respect the independence of the courts, but changed tack as opposition mounted and helped push the bill through Congress. It became law on Friday last week.
The developments of the week follow a historical pattern, experts said.
“On human rights issues, the political and institutional actions have always come after a demand from society as a whole,” said Gaston Chillier, the executive director of the Center for Legal and Social Studies, a human rights group in Argentina.
While it now appears very unlikely that hundreds of human rights abusers will be leaving prison ahead of schedule, advocates said the court’s decision exemplified the way in which Macri had adopted a less aggressive approach to dealing with one of the darkest chapters in Argentina’s history.
Two of the three justices who signed on to the decision were appointed by Macri, who took office in 2015, and advocates said the ruling fits a pattern of his administration’s tamping down efforts to seek justice for the atrocities carried out during the dictatorship.
Trying those crimes was a centerpiece of the policy of former Agrentinian presidents Cristina Fernandez, who served from 2007 to 2015, and Nestor Kirchner, her husband, who led the country from 2003 to 2007.
The court decision “surprised and angered us, but it isn’t incoherent with the philosophy of the current government,” said Estela Barnes de Carlotto, who leads Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group of women searching for the hundreds of newborn babies stolen from their mothers in clandestine detention centers during the dictatorship.
“It took Macri a whole week to say anything,” said Victoria Duran, a demonstrator at Wednesday’s protest in Buenos Aires.
As protesters packed the Plaza de Mayo square in Buenos Aires, they sang: “What happened to the Nazis will happen to you. Wherever you go, we will go after you.”
Marta Mamani, 64, went to the march carrying a photograph of her sister, Olga Mamani, and her brother-in-law, Luis Torres, both killed by the military after they disappeared in June 1976.
“The people who killed my sister can’t be walking the streets,” she said. “This march is a huge victory, but it tastes very bittersweet.”
The man to be freed early by the court’s ruling, Luis Muina, was convicted of torture and other crimes.
When Gladis Cuervo, 77, heard that the top court had reduced Muina’s sentence, she said: “I immediately felt despair, anxiety and a lot of pain.”
Muina was a security guard at the Posadas Hospital in Buenos Aires Province who helped set up a clandestine detention center there after the military junta’s takeover.
Cuervo, a nurse at the hospital, testified at Muina’s trial that he was one of those who tortured her when she was illegally detained for two months, breaking her sternum in beatings and burning parts of her body.
Muina in 2011 was sentenced to 13 years in prison for kidnapping and torturing five people during the dictatorship.
In its three-to-two decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Muina had the right to benefit from a law, which has since been revoked, that says the time a person spends in prison before a conviction should count double toward the sentencing total. A calculation by a lower court found that meant Muina should have been freed in November last year. Muina was already out of prison on parole when the ruling was issued.
The law, known as “two for one,” was in effect from 1994 to 2001 and had never before been used in a human rights case.
The attorney general’s office, an independent arm of the government now run by an ally of the previous administration, estimated that 278 people, or 52 percent of those sentenced for human rights crimes who are currently detained, could have seen a reduction in their sentence based on the Supreme Court ruling.
However, the government is confident that none of these criminals will have their sentences slashed because of the bill passed by Congress clarifying that the “two for one” law cannot apply to human rights cases.
“We think it’s a law that will be applied immediately, so the ruling won’t have any real impact,” Argentine Justice and Human Rights Minister German Garavano said.
On Friday last week, the Supreme Court said it would gather all the pending appeals on its docket to apply the “two for one” law to crimes against humanity cases, opening the door to a new ruling on the issue as early as next month.
Until that happens, some of the most well-known names from that time of state-sanctioned terror will continue seeking shorter sentences.
The Reverend Christian von Wernich, a former police chaplain convicted in 2007 for his involvement in seven murders and 42 kidnappings, asked a judge to reconsider his life sentence.
During his trial, witnesses recounted how Von Wernich was present at torture sessions and used his position as a priest to extract confessions in what became an emblematic case that illustrated how the Catholic Church often cooperated with the military junta.
When discussing the Macri administration’s stance toward the time of the dictatorship, advocates often cite how some officials, including the president, have questioned the number of people who died or disappeared during the era.
While official records estimate that 9,000 people were killed or disappeared, human rights groups say the real number is closer to 30,000.
Macri told a BuzzFeed reporter last year that he had “no idea” what the number was.
“Whether they were 9,000 or 30,000, it’s a pointless discussion,” he said.
Macri’s government has dismantled human rights departments in several ministries that were helping investigate dictatorship-era crimes and members of the administration have met with those who back the two demons theory that the state actions were the result of a civil war against armed leftist groups.
That change in attitude has spilled over to the courts, advocates said.
“Although the judiciary is relatively independent, it is clearly malleable to the agenda of the government that is in power,” Chillier said.
Fernandez commented on Twitter shortly after the decision.
“Argentina has gone back 20 years in terms of human rights,” she wrote. “This ruling would not have happened in the previous government.”
While human rights groups celebrated the quick turn of events as a rare victory in the Macri era, they vowed to stay alert about what could happen next.
“This government has never been interested in human rights,” said Nora Cortinas, 87, a leader of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Founding Line, a group made up of women whose children were killed during the dictatorship. “We stood up to a dictatorship and are still fighting — why would we stop now?”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with