Roberto Eduardo Viola

23.08.2010 ( Last modified: 01.06.2016 )
Trial Watch would like to remind its users that any person charged by national or international authorities is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

facts

Roberto Eduardo Viola was born on 13 October 1924. He took up a military career and was appointed Commander in Chief of the Argentine Army in 1975. He was a fervent supporter of the 1976 coup d’état and was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in 1977 and then to Commander in Chief with the rank of Lieutenant General.

He replaced Videla as the Head of State on 29 March 1981, but was himself ousted from power by General Galtieri on 11 December 1981.

During the years of dictatorship, in what was later to be termed the “dirty war” (1976-1983), the Argentine military resolved to eradicate what successive juntas called “subversive thoughts” as well as “terrorists”, namely “anyone who disseminated ideas contrary to Western Christian civilisation”. During the years that followed, the military murdered or forcibly “disappeared” from 10’000 to 30’000 people. In addition, some 500’000 opponents of the regime found themselves forced into exile to escape from its repression.

Several hundred secret detention centres were set up throughout the country. Torture was practised systematically in these centres. Also in these places numerous prisoners were murdered or disappeared. Young women prisoners who gave birth there had their children taken away from them and placed in military families after falsification of the relevant documents.

In the course of 1983, the military regime, weakened by its resounding defeat by the British navy in the Falklands war, gave way to a democratically elected civilian government with the Radical, Raul Alfonsin,as its President.

After the fall of the military junta, Roberto Eduardo Viola, together with others in positions of responsibility during the dictatorship, was indicted and put on trial.

legal procedure

After the fall of the military junta, Roberto Eduardo Viola, together with others in positions of responsibility during the dictatorship, was indicted and put on trial.

His trial – and that of the overall military junta – opened on 22 April 1985. Viola was indicted for numerous human rights violations.

On 9 December 1985, he was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment.

In December 1990, however, he was pardoned by President Menem and freed from prison.

Roberto Eduardo Viola died on 30 September 1994.

context

In December 1986, the Argentinean Parliament adopted a law called “final point,” which set a statute of limitation of 60 days for offences against international law committed in Argentina.

In May 1987, Parliament approved a second amnesty law called “due obedience,” which exempted from trial all military subordinates who had obeyed orders. This left only about thirty high-ranked military officers to face prosecution. The only crimes not covered by this law – and for which subordinates could still be tried – was theft, rape and the kidnapping of children. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this law in June 1987.

By December 1990 the first amnesty decrees were signed.

In all, 1195 members of the military who had participated in the junta received amnesty: 730 because of the “final point” law, 379 with the “due obedience” law, 49 declared by the Supreme Court and 42 by amnesty decrees.

In mid-August 2003, the new Argentinean president, Nestor Kirchner, had the amnesty laws repealed and the absence of statutes of limitation for crimes against humanity recognized.

Prosecutions of those involved in the junta once again became possible in Argentina.

Twenty former military personnel are being held in Argentina for crimes committed within the framework of the “Condor” plan. The total number of soldiers in detention and charged under Argentinean law for human rights violations amounts to 120 – to which should be added two Argentineans held in Spain. Some of these proceedings concern cases where children were forcibly taken away at birth from their mothers who had been imprisoned for political reasons. In the opinion of the judges, the amnesty law never covered this crime. (Source: Le Monde, January 5, 2005).

On 14 June 2005, the Argentinean Supreme Court declared the Amnesty Law unconstitutional, by 7 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention,– “Ley de Punto Final”; Ley 23.492-  and the Due Obedience Law – “Ley de Obediencia debida”; Ley 23.521- sanctioned by President Alfonsin in 1987. The Court maintained that these laws violated article 75, paragraph 22 of the 1994 Argentinean Constitution, which gives constitutional status to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to the Genocide Convention, to the Torture Convention and to the Inter-American Convention, among others. According to the Court, following diverse decisions by the Inter-American Court and by other international bodies, the State has an obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those who have committed violations of the right to life, to humane treatment or those who have engaged in disappearances, an obligation which cannot be limited or abolished by the enactment of an Amnesty or Due Obedience Laws as ruled by the Inter-American Court in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru.

This historical decision allows the domestic or international investigation, prosecution and punishment of members of the military suspected to have taken part in the torture, disappearance and/or killings of more than 30,000 persons in Argentina between 1976 and 1983.

On 20 September 2006, during the course of the trial of Miguel Etchecolatz, the court for the town of La Plata used the term “genocide” for the crimes committed by the military dictatorship (1976-1983). It was the first time these crimes were qualified as genocide by a court, just like human rights organisations had long argued they should be. This legal qualification is now contained in the judgment against former police officer Etchecolatz, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for torture, murder and abduction of opponents of the regime.

The court emphasised that the crimes were committed in the context of a genocide campaign organised by the state. For future procedures against former members of the police force and the military, this view could be of crucial importance.