> The violence precipitating the creation of theCommission

In 1976 the Argentinean armed forces seized power in a coup d’etat. For the next three years the military orchestrated a campaign that came to be known as the “dirty war,” directed at wiping out not only guerrillas and terrorists, but also what General Jorge Videla, the army’s representative in the initial junta, called “subversive thought.” In the name of this objective the military killed or caused to “disappear” an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 people. Very few of those who disappeared had any connection to the left-wing terrorist groups who provided the excuse for military excesses. People from all sectors of society, all regions and all classes were targeted for violence. The disappearances fostered a general sense of insecurity and fear. In 1979 the military declared victory over the subversive elements, and the number of disappearances decreased dramatically. Throughout the years 1979 to 1982 there was increasing pressure both internationally and domestically for information about the fate of the “desaparecidos.” The power of domestic voices grew as a result of economic crisis. Finally, in 1982, the Argentine military was defeated in the war against Great Britain over the Malvinas / Falklands islands, forcing them to allow general elections.Raul Alfonsin was elected president in 1983. Within his first week in office he appointed a National Commission on Disappeared Persons, and selected 10 prominent citizens, known for their consistent defense of human rights, as members. During this momentous first week Alfonsin also repealed the military amnesty that had been declared before the armed forces left office, and asked for the prosecution of the nine leaders of the military junta.

> The mandate and work of the Commission

The Commission was charged with a fairly narrow mission: to investigate the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared, and to produce a report to the president. At their first meeting they chose Ernesto Sabato, a well-respected Argentine author, as Commission Chair. CONADEP was given means to hire more than 60 people, and access to all government facilities. The Security Forces were also ordered to cooperate with investigations. However, it was not given subpoena power or the ability to compel testimony. All criminal evidence that was uncovered was to be turned over to the courts. CONADEP took testimony from relatives of the disappeared as well as fellow prisoners who had been released. They established several regional offices, which were open to take testimonies 4 days a week, traveled extensively to collect testimony from rural areas, and took testimonies at a number of Argentine Embassies abroad. It is believed, however, that the majority of crimes in many rural areas went unreported because of lack of access to the commission, and continuing fear of reprisal. Once testimony was given regarding a crime an investigation was carried out, and where there was sufficient evidence, records were given to the courts. Unfortunately, because of the lack of ability to compel evidence, and because of the widespread destruction of military documents, it was very hard to gather any new evidence about the disappeared. Thus while the Commission was able to document cases of almost 9,000 disappeared people, and to provide, in graphic detail, prototypical cases of what happened to these individuals, families and friends of the disappeared were offered very little new information as to the status of their loved ones. During the time of CONADEP’s work, Commissioners held regular press briefings, raising general levels of knowledge about what had happened during the military regime. After six months of work, in July of 1984, CONADEP presented a two-hour synopsis of testimonies on national television. The public presentation of victim voices was so powerful that the government almost refused to air the program. Two months later CONADEP issued its final report to the President. This included 50,000 pages of documentation. The summary was published under the title Nunca Mas and became and immediate and enduring bestseller in Argentina. Nunca Mas was sold with an annex including the names of all 8,961 of the disappeared. The extensive report given to the President also included a list of all military personnel believed to be involved in the disappearances and the use of torture. This list was leaked to the press and published.

> The Impact of Commission’s work

One of the most unique aspects of the Argentine case is that several of the military leaders were held accountable for their crimes. Nine of the top Junta leaders were brought to trial. While only 5 of these individuals were ultimately found guilty, the trials, which were extensively covered in the media, contributed significantly to public awareness of the wide-spread abuses which occurred during the time of the military regime, and served as an additional official acknowledgment by the State that crimes had been committed. In 1987 all other attempts at prosecution were halted by two exculpatory laws. The first prevented any further charges from being brought, the second was a “due obedience” law which exempted from prosecution all military personnel who had been following orders. This effectively limited the ability of the families of the disappeared, whose cases had been presented to the court by CONADEP, from pressing charges. In 1990 Congress passed a law granting a pension equal to 75% of the minimum lifetime salary of the disappeared to the next-of-kin. Evidence presented in the CONADEP report has been important in enabling families to gain access to this pension fund. In 1991 the government enacted another law enabling individuals who were detained without trial during the period 1976-79 to receive significant compensation. However, many have been unable to claim this money because in order to do so they must provide sufficient proof as to how long they were detained, and when they were released. The military has been unwilling to provide any supporting documentation, and the CONADEP report has not been useful because it does not document cases of individuals who were detained and released.