NEW YORK -- In August the Argentine Congress voted to annul two statutes aimed at halting criminal prosecutions against military officers. These "impunity laws," in essence, had granted a blanket amnesty for past human rights abuses committed by the military during their rule. The goal of the annulment is to re-create the rule of law and may have far-reaching consequences for countries that have gone through similar situations.
This move against impunity has proven to be highly contentious. Not only is it unusual for Congress to invalidate laws (in general Congress enacts or abrogates laws), but many Argentines would have preferred to leave the past behind. Opening old wounds may be interpreted by some as a divisive distraction from more pressing social and economic woes besieging Argentina. But, at the same time, other citizens, equally besieged with horrible memories and personal outcomes caused by human rights violations, believe that not dealing with them is a poor foundation on which to continue to build a new rule of law.
The impunity laws have been widely censured under international law. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has consistently condemned impunity measures depriving victims of any remedy to vindicate their rights in court. Also, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (to whose supranational jurisdiction Argentina and two dozen Latin American countries are subject), affirmed that widespread, systematic and state-sponsored violations of human rights should be prosecuted. It also held that state parties were bound to abstain from giving any legal validation to blanket amnesties. Thus, the Argentine Congress, which two decades ago also annulled a self-amnesty that the military had granted to itself before leaving power, was merely carrying out its international obligations.