Domestic implementation of international criminal law
Eastern Republic of Uruguay
Domestic
LegislationJudicial decisions Resources and Links
Crimes Crime of Aggression / Crimes against peace
No specific provision. However, Uruguay ratified the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression on 23 September 2013:
Andorra, Cyprus, Slovenia, and Uruguay ratify amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression and article 8.
ICC-ASP-20131001-PR946, Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court, The Hague, 01 October 2013. [ENG]El Senado de Uruguay aprobó las enmiendas de Kampala al Estatuto de la CPI sobre crimen de agresión y crímenes de guerra.
Cámara de Senadores, Comunicado de Prensa Nº 100, 18 junio 2013. [SPA/ESL]Texto del Proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes del Uruguay para la ratificación de las enmiendas de Kampala.
Poder Legislativo, Cámara de Senadores, Distribuido Nº 2065/2013 (8 de mayo de 2013), Montevideo, Uruguay, 08 mayo 2013. [SPA/ESL]Crimes against humanity
See Articles 18-25 of the Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court in the fight against Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity:
Ley Nº 18.026 de Cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de lucha contra el Genocidio, los Crímenes de Guerra y de Lesa Humanidad.
Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo, 25 septiembre 2006. [SPA/ESL]Genocide
See Articles 16-17 and 25 of the Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court in the fight against Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity:
Ley Nº 18.026 de Cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de lucha contra el Genocidio, los Crímenes de Guerra y de Lesa Humanidad.
Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo, 25 septiembre 2006. [SPA/ESL]War Crimes
See Articles 25 and 26 of the Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court in the fight against Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity:
Ley Nº 18.026 de Cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de lucha contra el Genocidio, los Crímenes de Guerra y de Lesa Humanidad.
Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo, 25 septiembre 2006. [SPA/ESL]
Related documents:
Decreto 677-992 por el que se crea la Comisión Nacional de Derecho Humanitario. (Decree 677-992 establishing the National Humanitarian Law Commission).
Diario Oficial, Nº 23751, Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay, 01 marzo 1993. [SPA/ESL]Decreto 679/992 sobre el uso de los emblemas de la Cruz Roja y de Media Luna Roja. (Decree 679/992 on the use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems).
Diario Oficial, Nº 23751, Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay, 01 marzo 1993. [SPA/ESL]
Jurisdiction See Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the of the Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court in the fight against Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity:
Ley Nº 18.026 de Cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de lucha contra el Genocidio, los Crímenes de Guerra y de Lesa Humanidad.
Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo, 25 septiembre 2006. [SPA/ESL]
Part I of Law No. 18.026 (Artcicles 1 to 15) contains a series of general principles applicable to the crimes provided for in this Law, including the non-applicability of any statute of limitations (Article 7), amnesties (Article 8), due obedience and/or any other criminal exemptions (Article 9). Command responsibility and the exclusion of the military jurisdiction are included in Articles 10 and 11 respectively.
Complementary Legislation
Impunity laws:
Ley Nº 15.848 estableciendo la caducidad del ejercicio de la pretensión punitiva del Estado respecto de los delitos cometidos hasta el 1° de marzo de 1985 (Law on the prescription of criminal action for crimes committed until 1 March 1985).
Diario Oficial, N° 22295, Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay, 28 diciembre 1986. [SPA]
(Regarding the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations, see also: Sentencia de la Suprema Corte de Justicia declarando la inconstitucionalidad de la Ley de Caducidad en varios casos (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice declaring the unconstitutionality of the non-retroactivity law in several cases), 29 octubre 2010.)
Ley N° 15.737 de Amnistía (Amnesty Law).
Diario Oficial, Nº 21906, Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay, 22 marzo 1985. [SPA]
International Criminal Court
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: The Eastern Republic of Uruguay signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 19 December 2000 and deposited its instrument of ratification on 28 June 2002.
Ley Nº 18.026 de Cooperación con la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de lucha contra el Genocidio, los Crímenes de Guerra y de Lesa Humanidad.
Parlamento de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo, 25 septiembre 2006
In a communication received on 26 February 2008, the Government of Uruguay informed the Secretary-General of the following:"The Eastern Republic of Uruguay has communicated to the Secretary-General] the withdrawal of the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
As you know, Uruguay signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 19 December 2000. The Statute was approved at the national level by Act No. 17.510, which was promulgated by the Executive on 27 June 2002.
At that time, however, Uruguay made an interpretative declaration relating to the aforementioned Statute, in language identical to article 2 of the above-mentioned Act.
Without prejudice to the interpretative declaration made at the time of its promulgation, the Act itself (art. 3) states that the Executive shall within six months refer to the Legislature a bill establishing the procedures for ensuring the application of the Statute, pursuant to the provisions of part 9 of the Statute entitled “International cooperation and judicial assistance".
The interpretative declaration made upon ratification reads as follows:
As a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic. Pursuant to the provisions of part 9 of the Statute entitled "International cooperation and judicial assistance", the Executive shall within six months refer to the Legislature a bill establishing the procedures for ensuring the application of the Statute.
The Secretary-General received communications with regard to the interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification from the following Governments on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Ireland (28 July 2003) :
"Ireland has examined the text of the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Ireland notes that the said interpretative declaration provides that the application of the Rome Statute by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall be subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay. Ireland considers this interpretative declaration to be in substance a reservation.
Article 120 of the Rome Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations. In addition, it is a rule of international law that a state may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations.
Ireland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Ireland and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will therefore be effective between the two states, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (31 July 2003):
"At the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay made two statements which are called "interpretative declarations", at the first of which states that "as a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic".
The Government of the United Kingdom has given careful consideration to the so-called interpretative declaration quoted above. The Government of the United Kingdom is obliged to conclude that this so-called interpretative declaration purports to exclude or modify the legal effects of the Rome Statute in its application to the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and is accordingly a reservation. However, according to Article 120 of the Rome Statute, no reservations may be made thereto.
Accordingly, the Government objects to the above-quoted reservation by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. However, this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Rome Statute between the United Kingdom and Uruguay."
Uruguay (21 July 2003):
The Eastern Republic of Uruguay, by Act No. 17.510 of 27 June 2002 ratified by the legislative branch, gave its approval to the Rome Statute in terms fully compatible with Uruguay's constitutional order. While the Constitution is a law of higher rank to which all other laws are subject, this does not in any way constitute a reservation to any of the provisions of that international instrument.
It is noted for all necessary effects that the Rome Statute has unequivocally preserved the normal functioning of national jurisdictions and that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is exercised only in the absence of the exercise of national jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is very clear that the above-mentioned Act imposes no limits or conditions on the application of the Statute, fully authorizing the functioning of the national legal system without detriment to the Statute.
The interpretative declaration made by Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute does not, therefore, constitute a reservation of any kind.
Lastly, mention should be made of the significance that Uruguay attaches to the Rome Statute as a notable expression of the progressive development of international law on a highly sensitive issue.
Demark (21 August 2003):
Denmark has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Statute of the IInternational Criminal Court.
Denmark has noted that Uruguay effectively condition its application of provisions of the Statute on their accordance with the Constitution of Uruguay. The Government of Denmark believes that an interpretative declaration to this effect in substance must be understood as a reservation to the Statute, which if accepted would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Statute. In addition, Article 120 of the Statute expressly precludes the making of reservations to the Statute.
For these reasons Denmark objects to the reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Denmark and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. The Statute will be effective between the two states, without the Eastern Republic of Uruguay benefiting from its reservations.
Norway (29 August 2003):
"The Government of the Kingdom of Norway has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The Government of Norway notes that the interpretative declaration purports to limit the application of the Statute within national legislation, and therefore constitutes a reservation.
The Government of Norway recalls that according to Article 120 of the Statute, no reservations may be made to the Statute.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Uruguay upon ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute in its entirety between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay. The Statute thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and Uruguay without Uruguay benefiting from the reservation."
On 19 July 2002, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay made the following notification under article 87 (2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
.....in accordance with article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay wishes to inform the Secretary-General that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting such requests should be drawn up in Spanish or be accompanied by a translation into Spanish.
On 5 March 2004, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay made the following notification under article 87 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
".....according to article 87 paragraph 1 (a) of the Rome Statute, .....the Government of Uruguay has designated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its channel of communication with the International Criminal Court."
- Under construction -
Non-applicability of statutory limitations (Uruguay):
Sentencia de la Suprema Corte de Justicia declarando la inconstitucionalidad de la Ley de Caducidad en varios casos (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice declaring the unconstitutionality of the non-retroactivity law in several cases).
Sentencia No. 1525, Suprema Corte de Justicia, Montevideo, 29 octubre 2010. [SPA/ESL]
Proceedings against Juan María Bordaberry, Juan Carlos Blanco and Gral. Gregorio Álvarez (Uruguay) |*|:
Sentencia condenatoria contra Juan María Bordaberry por un delito de atentado contra la Constitución y crímenes contra la humanidad. (Judgment pronounced against Juan María Bordaberry for offences against the Constitution and crimes against humanity, Criminal Court of First Instance in the 7th district of Montevideo, 09 February 2010).
Juzgado Letrado en lo Penal de 7mo Turno, Montevideo, 09 febrero 2010. [SPA/ESL]
Escrito presentado en la causa contral el ex canciller Juan Carlos Blanco por el asesinato de Elena Quinteros.
Dr. Pablo Chargoñia, Uruguay, junio de 2004. [SPA/ESL]
Escrito de la fiscalía denegando la excarcelación provisional de Juan Carlos Blanco Estradé.
Fiscal Letrada Nacional en lo Penal de 2º Turno, Montevideo, Uruguay. [SPA/ESL]
Texto completo de la sentencia del juez Eduardo Cavalli procesando al ex canciller de la dictadura, Juan Carlos Blanco.
Juez Eduardo Cavalli, Montevideo, Uruguay, 18 octubre 2002. [SPA/ESL]
Solicitud de procesamiento de Juan Carlos Blanco Estradé, como coautor de un delito de homicidio muy especialmente agravado.
Fiscal Ltdo. Nacional en lo Penal de 2º Turno, Montevideo, Uruguay. [SPA/ESL]
Solicitud de desarchivo y aporte de elementos probatorios.
Por el abogado Pablo Chargoñia, Montevideo, Uruguay. [SPA/ESL]
|*|: Although the judicial decisions under this section concern serious crimes committed during the Military Dictatorship (1973-1985), these crimes, except for the above decision of February 9, 2010 regarding the former head of state Juan María Bordaberry, were characterized in general as ordinary crimes.
Proceedings in Italy for Operation Condor (Italy):
Avviso di fissazione di udienza preliminare del Tribunale di Roma in riferimento alla richiesta d'apertura del processo contro 31 imputati formulata dal Procuratore nella "Causa Condor". Tribunale Ordinario di Roma, Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagani Preliminari, Roma, 16lug13. [ITA]
Atto di accusa della Procura di Roma per l'apertura del processo contro 31 imputati per crimini commessi durante l'Operazione Condor. Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Roma, Roma, 31gen13. [ITA]
Related information:
IACHR Concerned about Failure to Investigate Threats against Justice Operators Active in Cases of Serious Human Rights Violations during Uruguayan Dictatorship.
Press Release 45/19, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, D.C., 27 February 2019. [ENG]
Constitución de la República Oriental del Uruguay. Parlamento del Uruguay. [SPA]. [Last accessed 22Aug19]. [External Link]
Constitution of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. (1966-67, reinst. 1985, rev. 2004).
Comparative Constitutions Project. [ENG]. [Last accessed 22Aug19]. [External link]
Código Penal. Actualizado febrero 2014. (Penal Code, updated February 2014).
Parlamento del Uruguay. [SPA]. [Last accessed 22Aug19]. [External Link to pdf file]
Código del Proceso Penal. Ley Nº 15.032 (actualizado de 16 agosto 2013) (Criminal Procedural Code; updated 13 August 2013)
Parlamento del Uruguay. [SPA]. [Last accessed 22Aug19]. [External Link to pdf file]
Búsqueda de Documentos y Leyes. (Search Documents and Laws). Parlamento del Uruguay. [SPA]. [Last accessed 22Aug19]. [External Link] Human Rights in Uruguay.
Derechos Human Rights/Equipo Nizkor. [Mainly SPA, with some documents available in ENG and FRA]. [External Link]
List of International Humanitarian Law Treaties to which Uruguay is a State party. [ENG]
(International Committee of the Red Cross). [ENG] [Last accessed 17Aug17] [External Link]