To Prosecute or to Pardon? Human Rights Decisions in the Latin American Southern Cone

Abstract

This paper examines why human rights trials against military offenders were held in Argentina and not elsewhere. Although nearly all South American countries were afflicted by state repression and terror during the decade of the 1 970s, Argentina remains the only nation that has indicted and prosecuted military officers for their role in repression. The trials of the former members of the military juntas that ruled Argentina between 1976 and 1982 engendered intense curiosity and scrutiny in the international community. Not since the Nuremburg trials of the nazi criminals of World War II had a trial of this nature anywhere in the world captured so much public attention. Given the extent of the atrocities committed by the previous military government, such proceedings certainly seemed warranted. Yet, despite terrible anguish suffered under repressive military rule, neither Uruguay nor Chile has conducted similar trials. Arguably, all the Southern Cone democratic presidents who assumed power after the transition were justified in investigating and prosecuting those military officers who had abused their authority by committing human rights crimes while in office. Although the scope and severity of the crimes varied, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay easily qualified as consistent, gross human rights-offending regimes. Countless reports issued by internationally respected agencies such as Amnesty International, The OAS Human Rights Commission, and Americas Watch testified to that