RIGHTS-ARGENTINA: Kidnap Cases Not a Military Court Issue

By Marcela Valente Reprint | | Print |

Marcela Valente

BUENOS AIRES, Jul 27 2000 (IPS) - Argentina’s Supreme Court denied a controversial military court petition Thursday that claimed jurisdiction over cases involving the illegal appropriation of minors that occurred during the country’s last dictatorship (1976- 1983), proceedings affecting at least nine former top military officials.

Government authorities are investigating the kidnapping of at least 194 children – some born to mothers who were being held prisoner illegally -, the changing of their identities and the falsification of documents. All are crimes for which the military officials have not been tried, and therefore are not included in amnesties or pardons issued in the past.

So far, nine of the military dictatorship’s top brass have been taken into custody, though only two are in prison. The rest are under house arrest because they are over 70, and include two members of the de facto regime’s junta, former army chief Jorge Videla and former admiral Emilio Massera.

The nine were found guilty of serious human rights violations in the 1980s, but were later pardoned by president Carlos Menem (1989-1999). The crimes currently being investigated, however, were not included under Menem’s decree and prosecutors are attempting to demonstrate that the dictators had a systematic plan for handling their prisoners’ children.

The military dictatorship gave many of the children away in “adoptions” by officials or civilians with military ties, or they abandoned the minors.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was announced just hours after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued a statement to the Argentinean government stressing concern about the possibility that the case would be diverted from the civil justice system to the military courts.

Judge Eduardo Moliné O’Connor, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court during the southern hemisphere winter break, said Thursday that the question of jurisdiction proposed by military authorities “should not suspend the course of actions under federal civilian justice.” In other words, the case is to continue in the regular court system.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces had demanded to hear the case of the appropriated children since early this year, pulling it out of the sphere of civilian courts. The Supreme Court seemed to accept the petition July 17 when it called on the federal justice authorities to hand over the files.

The Supreme Court’s secretary issued the request just as the vacation period began, but it later became evident that not all members of the tribunal agreed with granting the military’s request.

Given this situation, the federal justice in charge, Adolfo Bagnasco, refused to suspend the court’s actions and said that only a magistrate of the court – not a secretary – could issue the petition to the federal legal authorities. His decision was seconded Thursday by a member of the high court.

Human rights organisations, meanwhile, had spoken out against the Supreme Court’s original intervention and had asked president Fernando de la Rúa, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to order the military’s Supreme Council to withdraw its petition.

But the Executive branch did not condemn the military court’s action and stayed out of the controversy, except for statements on the legal proceedings made by some members of the Cabinet. Then the IACHR confronted the De la Rúa administration with its letter of concern.

The letter, signed by IACHR executive secretary Jorge Taiana, of Argentina, points out that “the military courts do not offer guarantees of impartiality and independence” in trying crimes committed by the dictatorship, and calls on the government to provide detailed information on the proceedings within 30 days.

In the same document, the IACHR questions the intent to pull cases out of the civilian justice system that seek to determine the fate of those who disappeared during the dictatorship, another issue in which the State promised to respect the actions of the Judicial branch, though there have been recent reports of interference.

In this case, the Supreme Court asked the Federal Court of Bahía Blanca to send the Court of Final Criminal Appeals all files involving cases that seek the truth about events under the dictatorship after a military official refused to collaborate in the trial and was temporarily taken into custody.

Human rights organisations also question this measure, which the IACHR listed among the concerns in its letter – especially because the army brass have demonstrated their explicit support for the arrested officials by refusing to provide any information.

The IACHR had another dispute with the Argentinean Supreme Court in the mid-1990s, when the high court refused a woman the right to demand the truth about the fate of her daughter, who was detained by the dictatorship’s security forces in 1977 and is still missing.

Human rights groups brought her case before the IACHR, which then was able to reach an agreement with Argentina’s government to open the way for the claims of family members who, after accepting the amnesties and pardons of those responsible for human rights crimes, now want to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones.

But that accord is now in danger of being subjugated by the Supreme Court since it called on the Bahía Blanca court, which is involved in investigating the kidnapping of prisoners’ children, to turn over the extensive case to the higher Criminal Appeals Court, which could bring all cases involving the minors to a halt.

The members of the Federal Court of Bahía Blanca then denounced the Supreme Court for attempting to pull cases out of federal jurisdiction in order to present them together before the Criminal Appeals Court.

Once the various cases are consolidated, the higher court would issue a political ruling in order to put an end to “the parade of military officials” through the justice system, charged the judges.