By CIVICUS
Jun 13 2025 (IPS)
CIVICUS discusses struggles for historical justice with Graciela Montes de Oca, a member of Mothers and Relatives of Detained and Disappeared Uruguayans, a Uruguayan civil society organisation that seeks truth, justice and prevention of future crimes like those committed under dictatorship.
Graciela Montes de Oca
Since 1996, Uruguayan civil society has mobilised in a March of Silence every 20 May. This year, thousands of people took part in the march’s 30th edition along the main avenue of the capital, Montevideo, and other Uruguayan cities. They demanded truth, memory and justice for people detained and disappeared under dictatorship between 1973 and 1985. Organised by human rights groups and relatives of victims, this demonstration has become a powerful symbol of collective memory.What’s commemorated on 20 May?
On 20 May 1976, one of the most brutal episodes of state terrorism in the Southern Cone took place. At that time, Uruguay was living under a civil-military dictatorship that participated in Operation Condor, a regional agreement between several countries ruled by dictatorships that coordinated the kidnapping, torture and murder of political opponents.
Four Uruguayans were murdered in Buenos Aires, Argentina that day: Congressman Héctor Gutiérrez Ruiz, Senator Zelmar Michelini and two leftist activists, Rosario Barredo and William Whitelaw. Doctor Manuel Liberoff was also kidnapped at the same time and has been missing ever since.
The impact was devastating. Michelini and Gutiérrez Ruiz were prominent political figures and defenders of democracy who had sought asylum in Argentina after denouncing the crimes of the Uruguayan dictatorship. Their murder was an attempt to silence their critical voices forever.
How did the March of Silence come about?
The first March of Silence took place in 1996, on the 20th anniversary of the murders. Initially conceived as a one-off tribute, its profound impact meant the Mothers of the Disappeared decided to turn it into an annual event.
The march has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other demonstrations: it is completely silent, open to all citizens regardless of political affiliation and maintains a peaceful nature that enhances its symbolic power. Its persistence over three decades has made it much more than a protest: it’s a collective ritual of memory that keeps the demand for truth and justice alive.
Our demands remain unchanged: we want to know what happened to our missing relatives. We are not seeking revenge, but rather to prevent these crimes going unpunished and being repeated. The Uruguayan state must investigate and respond because these crimes were committed in its name. Justice is not only our right; it is the state’s obligation under international law.
How do civil society groups support this struggle?
Civil society groups have played a key role in keeping this cause alive. Through talks, artistic interventions, exhibitions, sporting events and other activities, they constantly reinforce collective memory. Civil society also promotes the restoration of historical sites and memorials and highlights cases that remain unresolved.
All of these efforts converge towards a shared goal: ensuring there will never again be state terrorism in Uruguay.
What obstacles remain to uncovering the truth?
The main obstacle is the pact of silence maintained by the military and civilians responsible for the crimes. This mafia code keeps the truth hidden.
The consequences are tangible and painful: without information on the location of the remains of those allegedly murdered, forensic teams are working in the dark. We know there are files containing vital information that are either hidden or inaccessible. That is why we demand the state actively searches for these files, locates them and hands them over.
The international community also has responsibilities. It must pressure the Uruguayan state to fulfil its obligations under international human rights law, including full compliance with existing international rulings.
In 2011, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that the Uruguayan state was responsible for the enforced disappearance of two activists – María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman and her husband, Marcelo Ariel Gelman Schubaroff – and for appropriating and removing the identity of their daughter, who was born in captivity. This judgment has been the subject of multiple resolutions, most recently in 2020, which continue to monitor compliance with the reparations ordered.
Meanwhile, after examining Uruguay in 2013 and 2022, the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances issued binding concluding observations expressing concern about the slow pace of investigations and calling for judicial processes to be accelerated. These two international pronouncements clearly establish the state’s obligation to guarantee truth, justice and reparation for victims. Truth and justice have no statute of limitations.
CONTACT
Website
Facebook
Instagram
SEE ALSO
Uruguay: Concerns over anti-union allegations; Suspension of Media Decree signals positive development CIVICUS Monitor 22.Apr.2025
Uruguay: ‘The far right is still marginal; there’s a majority commitment to democracy’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Alicia Lissidini 09.Jan.2025
Uruguay: ‘We don’t need a new media law, but proper implementation of the existing one’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Fabián Werner 04.Jun.2024
Delegates discuss preparations for the high-level conference at UN Headquarters in New York. May 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 2025 (IPS)
The United States, a longstanding and unyielding Israeli ally, is threatening UN member states urging them to keep off an upcoming high-level meeting aimed at recognizing a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
The meeting, to be co-chaired by France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and Saudi Arabia, a strong political ally of the US, is scheduled to take place June 17-20.
According to the London Guardian, the Trump administration is discouraging governments around the world from attending the conference.
The diplomatic demarche, sent out last week, says countries that take “anti-Israel actions” following the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to US foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences from Washington.
“The United States opposes the implied support of the conference for potential actions including boycotts and sanctions on Israel as well as other punitive measures,” the cable read.
The United States also opposes “any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,” according to the cable cited by the Jerusalem Post.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and former director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch, told IPS
the international community should reject the Trump administration’s naked bullying to stop them from attending a conference on Palestinian statehood.
She said the international community has a legal and moral duty to help end Israel’s illegal occupation and apartheid rule.
“The United States finds itself more and more isolated from the rest of the world because of its destructive obeisance to Israeli diktat,” Whitson declared.
“It is absolutely essential to keep alive the two-State solution perspective with all the terrible things we are witnessing in Gaza and the West Bank,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters last week.
“And for those that doubt about the two-State solution, I ask: What is the alternative? Is it a one-state solution in which either the Palestinians are expelled or forced to live in their land without rights?”
Meanwhile, the longtime pro-Israeli Western alliance seems to be on the verge of gradually crumbling?
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) last week warmly welcomed the decision jointly made by five Western nations – the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Norway–in imposing sanctions on two extremist ministers in the Israeli government.
The move was considered “an important step toward upholding justice and accountability and ending impunity enjoyed by the Israeli officials involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, incitement to violence, organized terrorism, and genocide. “
The OIC said it “strongly condemned National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s storming, once again, of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, under the protection of the Israeli occupation forces”.
It cited it as a further provocation to the feelings of all Muslims and a dangerous escalation of the Israeli occupation’s plots aiming to change the historical and legal situation of the holy sites in Jerusalem, especially the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.
As outlined in General Assembly resolution 79/81, next week’s Conference will produce an action-oriented outcome document entitled “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and implementation of the two-State solution”.
Meanwhile, two European countries –Spain and Ireland– have recognized Palestine as a sovereign nation state.
Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, and coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS rather than recognizing how Israeli security and Palestinian rights are mutually dependent on each other, the Trump administration, echoing the far right in Israel, is insisting that it is a zero-sum game.
In their view, he pointed out, any talk of a two-state solution—even a mini-state on just 22% of historic Palestine—is “anti-Israel.”
“The fact that, rather than simply boycotting the conference, the administration is threatening diplomatic consequences towards nations that attend in indicative of the extreme measures they are willing to take in support of Israeli expansionism,” he said.
Democratic foreign policy has not been much different, however.
While claiming to support a two-state solution, Dr Zunes pointed out, successive Democratic administrations and Congressional leaders have refused to recognize the State of Palestine.
Along with Israel, they have vetoed UN resolutions allowing Palestine to join as a member, have even withdrawn from UN entities which include Palestine, and have opposed pressuring Israel to allow for the emergence of a Palestinian state while categorically ruled out supporting Palestinian statehood outside of Israeli terms—even as the Israeli government has categorically ruled it out.
In practice, then, little has changed in regard to U.S. policy, declared Dr Zunes.
Asked for a UN response to the US warning against participation in next week’s conference, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters Wednesday: “I believe that all the Member States of the system will make their own decisions, according to what their own interests are”
“But we expect that there will be widespread attendance at this meeting. And the Secretary-General in his stakeout appearance last week explained exactly the importance of keeping the two-state solution alive.
With the lack of support from United States, how much of the possibility is still there for a two-state solution?
“I think the Secretary-General has been very clear and very straightforward about what the challenges are that the two-state solution faces. And he’s also been clear, as he told you last Friday, what are the alternatives to it?
“We need to have a solution where the people of Israel and the people of Palestine can live side by side in peace and security. This is the one solution that the international community has embraced and has been able to try to push forward over the years.”
“Obviously, there are challenges facing it, and they’re extremely clear at this moment. But this is the way forward that we have, and we have to embrace it”, said Haq.
IPS UN Bureau Report