القاعدة ذات الصلة
Uruguay
Practice Relating to Rule 159. Amnesty
Under its Amnesty Law of 1985, Uruguay granted amnesty with respect to all political offences and criminal and military offences related thereto committed after 1 January 1962. “Political offences” are defined as those committed directly or indirectly for political motives. The amnesty extends to all persons accused of committing these offences as authors, co-authors or accomplices and accessories, whether or not they have been convicted or tried. Offences committed by police or military personnel, equiparados, and others who have subjected individuals to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or detained individuals who subsequently disappeared are excluded, as are offences committed by persons of these categories who acted as accomplices for or covered up those offences. Penalties and sanctions imposed for the amnestied offences were also declared null and void ab initio. 
Uruguay, Amnesty Law, 1985, Articles 1–7.
In 1986, Uruguay adopted an Amnesty Law for offences committed between 1984 and 1985 by military and police personnel for political motives or in the course of discharging their functions, and for offences committed on orders received during the “de facto period” when a situation of internal violence prevailed. 
Uruguay, Amnesty Law, 1986, Article 1.
Uruguay’s Resolution on the Annulment of All Acts of State in Furtherance of the 1986 Amnesty Law (2011) states:
WHEREAS: I) Article 1º of Law No. 15.848 of 22 December 1986 on the Expiry of the Punitive Claims of the State [1986 Amnesty Law] states: “It is recognized that, following the logic of the events triggered by the agreement between the political parties and the Armed Forces in August 1984, and in order to complete the transition toward the full enforcement of the constitutional order, the punitive powers of the State regarding the offences committed up to 1 March 1985 by police and military personnel, equivalents and assimilated [personnel], for political motives or while fulfilling their duties and as a result of orders set by the commanders who operated during the de facto period, have expired”;
II) Article 3º of the same Law states: “For the purposes provided in the previous articles, the Judge hearing the complaints shall ask the Executive Power to be informed, within the peremptory term of thirty days from when the communication was received, of whether the act under investigation falls under Article 1º of the present Law. If the Executive Power replies in the affirmative, the Judge shall order the closing of the proceeding. If, on the contrary, no reply is received or the Executive Power replies in the negative, the Judge shall order the continuation of the investigation. … ”;
CONSIDERING: I) that the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case Gelman v. Uruguay of 24 February 2011 provides, in paragraph 11, that: “The State must guarantee that the Expiry Law, for lacking effects due to its incompatibility with the American Convention [of Human Rights] and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, as far as it can prevent or hinder the investigation and possible sanction of those responsible for serious human rights violations, will never again be an impediment to the investigation of the facts and for the identification, and w[h]ere applicable, punishment of those responsible, in conformity with paragraphs 253 and 254 of the Judgment.”;
II) that paragraph 254 states: “Consequently, the State should ensure that no other analogous norm, such as a statute of limitations, non-retroactivity of the criminal law, res judicata, ne bis in idem or any other similar law exonerating responsibility, be applied and that the authorities refrain from carrying out acts that would implicate the obstruction of the investigative process”;
V) that paragraph 244 of the abovementioned decision states: “The Inter-American Court concludes that the State violated the rights to fair trial and judicial protection provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and of the mentioned norms of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons …” and paragraph 246 states: “Due to the interpretation and application that has been given to the Expiry Law, which lacks legal effect in regard to human rights violations in the terms indicated above … the State has not fulfilled its obligation to adapt its domestic legislation to the Convention, contained in Article 2 thereof, in relation to Articles 8(1), 25, and 1(1) thereof and Articles I(b), III, IV, and V of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.”;
VI) that Uruguay has, in addition, ratified the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 24 October 1986, and the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity on 21 September 2001;
VII) that according to the foregoing, Uruguay’s international responsibility has been recognized by the abovementioned decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and therefore Uruguay is obliged to give effect to that decision;
IX) that the Court additionally held that illegal acts do not create subjective rights nor legitimate interests protected by Law, and that when the revocation is grounded on reasons of legitimacy, its effects are projected in the past;
ON THE BASIS of the foregoing;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Acting in the Council of Ministries
DECREES:
1º. – For reasons of legitimacy, all administrative acts and communications issued in accordance with Article 3 of Law 15.848 of 22 December 1986 by the Executive Power declaring that the reported facts fell under the provision of Article 1 of the same law are abolished, and in lieu thereof it is declared that those facts did not fall under the abovementioned legal provision. 
Uruguay, Resolution on the Annulment of All Acts of State in Furtherance of the 1986 Amnesty Law, 2011, Preamble and Article 1º.
Uruguay’s Law on the Restoration of the State’s Punitive Powers (2011) states:
The full exercise of the State’s punitive powers with regard to the offences committed in pursuance of State terrorism up to 1 March 1985 and falling under Article 1º of Law 15.848 of 22 December 1986 [1986 Amnesty Law] is restored. 
Uruguay, Law on the Restoration of the State’s Punitive Powers, 2011, Article 1.
Under its Amnesty Law of 1985, Uruguay granted amnesty with respect to all political offences and criminal and military offences related thereto committed after 1 January 1962. “Political offences” are defined as those committed directly or indirectly for political motives. The amnesty extends to all persons accused of committing these offences as authors, co-authors or accomplices and accessories, whether or not they have been convicted or tried. Offences committed by police or military personnel, equiparados, and others who have subjected individuals to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or detained individuals who subsequently disappeared are excluded, as are offences committed by persons of these categories who acted as accomplices for or covered up those offences. Penalties and sanctions imposed for the amnestied offences were also declared null and void ab initio. 
Uruguay, Amnesty Law, 1985, Articles 1–7.
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
The crimes and punishments set out in Titles I to III of Part II of the present law [genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes] may not be abolished by a pardon, amnesty, grace, or any other act of sovereign or similar mercy which would impede the prosecution of suspects or the effective execution of a punishment. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 8.