Report of Futures for CELS Meeting 11 May 2007 This report is intended as a summary of the meeting. It does not purport to be a full or verbatim record. If any extract from the speaker’s remarks is quoted, please credit both the speaker and Chatham House, giving the date of the meeting. Theme: ‘Human Rights in Argentina 2007: Restoring the Course of Justice’ Chair: Dr. Rachel Sieder, Chatham House Associate Fellow Presentation by Mr Gastón Chillier, Executive Director of CELS, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ------------------------------------------------ This session saw a presentation by Gastón Chillier about the human rights situation in Argentina, following the recently-published 2007 CELS Annual Report. He discussed the newly reopened process of justice for the crimes of the military Juntas, stating that 2006 has seen the first two convictions for these crimes in the period since amnesty laws were repealed. Nonetheless, the speaker emphasized that major challenges nonetheless remain to CELS’ goal of promoting a democratic state that protects human rights. These include weak state institutions and social exclusion as well as the various difficulties that the State has faced in its attempt to manage and institutionalize public policies. ´Low intensity citizenship’ has replaced ideological affiliation or political activism as a primary motivator of exclusion from enjoyment of the full range of civil, political, socioeconomic and cultural rights. ------------------------------------------------ Introduction to CELS CELS was founded during the most recent Argentine dictatorship period. Its founders included lawyers who wished to support the newly-formed Madres de la Plaza de Mayo as well as to legally document human rights violations (HRVs). Objectives In its pursuit of improving the process of justice in Argentina and the construction of a democratic state that respects human rights, CELS aims: • To seek reparation for the victims • To provide an ethical and political foundation for the Rule of Law • To create a solid base for democratic governance However, a number of structural problems stand in the way of the effective implementation of the rule of law, these include: • Institutional weakness: the State’s inability to manage and institutionalize certain aspects of public policy. • High levels of social fragmentation (poor access to social plans, poor provision of public services). • Persistence of certain practices that violate human rights (members of the police force implicated in institutional violence, prison overpopulation…) Achievements Despite all these challenges, there has been significant progress regarding the process of justice. Chronology of the process of justice in Argentina (1985-2007) 1985 Ruling on Case 13: Military Junta convictions. 1986 Full Stop Law (Ley de Punto Final). 1987 Due Obedience Law (Ley de Obediencia Debida). 1989/90 Pardon decrees. 1992 IACHR report 28/92. Incompatibility of the impunity laws. 1997 Numerous criminal trials begin in Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the United States. 2000 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) report 21/00. ‘Friendly agreement – “Lapaco” case. Acknowledgement of the right to truth. 2001 The Due Obedience and Full Stop laws are declared unconstitutional, null and non- applicable for the first time. 2002 The Federal Chamber declares the impunity laws unconstitutional. 2003 Congress declares the impunity laws null. 2005 The Supreme Court declares the Full Stop and Due Obedience laws unconstitutional. The Argentine Supreme Court’s ruling that the impunity laws were unconstitutional specified: 1) the invalidity of amnesties for crimes against humanity 2) the obligation of the State to prevent, investigate and punish human rights violations acknowledged by the IACHR. E.g. ‘Barrios Altos’ case (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, CIDH, Report no. 29/92) Also, two cases stand out in recent years regarding the Court’s willingness to reinforce the process of justice: 1. Trial of Julio Simón: oral and public trial against former police officer Julio Simón for the abduction and concealment of Claudia Poblete and for the illegal privation of freedom and torture of her parents. The trial led to the recognition of the methods of kidnapping and torture used by the military junta. Julio Simón was sentenced to 25 years of prison 2. Trial of Miguel Etchecolatz: this former police officer was found guilty on six counts of homicide and eight counts of kidnapping and torture. Etchecolatz was sentenced to life in prison. In addition to these two trials, a number of cases are waiting to take place. Most importantly, these include the trial against Antonio Febres for crimes perpetrated at the Navy Mechanical School (ESMA), a case against five members of the First Army Corps and one concerning the Fátima Massacre. New challenges Although the number of cases has increased there is a range of new challenges which prevent compliance with human rights clauses and regulations. In the case of justice for the crimes of the military juntas, these include: • To promote coordination between different state agencies. • To develop a plan for State authorities to forecast and deal with the consequences of reopening the trials. • To encourage training of the forces in charge of investigation and security. • To obtain accurate information on the cases and the risks they might entail. • To take action against the delay of judicial investigations. To avoid bottlenecks at the Criminal Cassation Court. • To take action to avoid delays in the designation of judicial officers. The other important response would be to develop a comprehensive policy to guarantee the protection of victims, witnesses, human rights defenders and public officials. This issue has been particularly highlighted by the 2006 disappearance of Julio Lopez, a witness in the trial of Julio Simon. This would also involve a risk assessment to preempt any obstacles and to sketch effective responses and the training of officers in charge of protection duties. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Q: What are the links between past and contemporary human rights violations? Does CELS have a programme of strategic litigation around socioeconomic and cultural rights in the same way that it previously litigated to establish full civil and political rights? A: Argentina is perhaps one of the transition ‘cases’ which shows that a justice model, rather than a reconciliation model, can be successfully followed with regard to crimes of the past. In Argentina the incoming state did dismantle the previous obstacles to prosecution of crimes of the past, but did not build the necessary preparatory structures to actually prosecute. That must now be addressed. In 1994 Argentina, as part of its democratic transition process, incorporated a great deal of international human rights legislation. The intention behind this may have been more political/ electoral than anything else, nonetheless the outcome has been useful as a launching platform for litigation to establish the justiciability of socioeconomic and cultural rights. These days approximately 70% of our work is in this ‘non-historical’ arena. We have had some success in this recently, at Supreme Court level, regarding pensions, environmental and health issues. However, even successful work on justiciability does not attack the inequality which is at the root of much social exclusion, and so we have added a line of work which monitors state practice regarding social policy. A present aim would be to identify issues which involve both areas of rights – civil/political and socioeconomic and cultural – such as problems over water allocation and access in one particular city, which throws up problems such as the difficulty citizens have in getting information from or getting direct access to municipal authorities. We do the work traditional to a human rights organisation, of monitoring rights violations, but in the past decade have added work in policy and advocacy. The goal is to build or to stimulate the building of a rights-protective state, rather than solely to react when violations have already occurred. Q: What is the status of the past justice debate in Uruguay? Has CELS any links there? CELS does not formally or financially support work in neighbo uring Uruguay, but we certainly have links with human rights organisations there and there have been various efforts to create for a to share experiences. The issue is less advanced there, in part reflecting less institutional support, although 2006 did see the first signs of positive Uruguayan judicial decisions, including rulings allowing the extradition to Argentina of Uruguayan officers accused of involvement in Operation Condor. Q: What are the sources of CELS’s support? A: CELS does not have any state funding, nor has it ever raised any funds from private sources such as corporations within Argentina. This would not necessarily be ruled out on principle, but issues of legitimacy and independence always make it difficult to raise finance for this kind of work at a national level. Q: Are human rights issues related to the recent dictatorship dealt with in educational curricula? A:Yes: this is not an area CELS works in directly, but we have provided information for schools in the Buenos Aires province. The anniversary of the coup is now (since 2006?) a national holiday of commemoration. Q: Do you emphasise direct pressure on institutions, or do you try to affect institutional practice by influencing public