The text that follows is an unofficial DIRB translation, provided for your reference, of a fax sent to the DIRB by the Peace and Justice Service of Uruguay (Servicio de Paz y Justicia, SERPAJ-Uruguay), which consulted a number of specialized sources (24 Aug. 1994).

1) On the penalties for refusing to follow orders, particularly when thesewere orders to commit illegal acts:

According to the Military Penal Code (Código Penal Militar), every person serving in the military who refuses to follow a normal order, which, according to Colonel Dr. (in law) Dario Cortagelli, must be interpreted as "orders which correspond to legitimate acts" (órdenes con arreglo a la legitimidad), must be judged by the Military Justice (Justicia Militar). Military Justice must apply one of two main concepts: a) disobedience and lack of respect, which receive penalties ranging from four months in jail to four years in penitentiary; and b) insubordination, whose penalties range from eight months in jail to eight years in penitentiary.

No code contemplates the refusal to follow illegal orders. In reality, particularly during the dictatorship, reasons other than refusal to follow orders were sought for applying punishments. There were cases in which servicemen were persecuted, and/or had fictitious charges pressed against them which the Military Justice used to imprison and, at the end of the prison terms, discharge them from the forces without any rights. In many cases, the individuals were gravely tortured.

2) On the maximum and minimum penalties for desertion, and whether these are currently applied:

According to the Military Code, simple desertion (deserción simple) is punished with terms ranging from 3 to 18 months of imprisonment. If it is considered that there was neglect (omisión) during service, the penalties can reach three years in penitentiary. Qualified desertion (deserción calificada) receives penalties ranging from 3 to 8 years.

Since Uruguay has no compulsory military service, deserters are those who abandon their duties after having signed a contract. During the dictatorship, generally speaking, even those whose contracts had expired were not allowed to leave the forces. According to our sources, under normal circumstances those who had incurred in simple desertion were not pursued.

3) On whether cases of desertion and disobedience, as described above, which took place during the dictatorship would have been pardoned by the 1986 amnesty or for any other reason:

Law No. 15,848 on the Expiration of the Punitive Intentions of the State (Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado), also known as the "law of impunity" (ley de impunidad) states the following (original text in Spanish follows the paragraph):
The enforcement of the punitive intentions of the state as regards to the offenses committed up to 1 March 1985 by military and police personnel, equivalents and assimilated personnel, due to political motives or while fulfilling their duties and as a result of orders set by the commanders who operated during the de facto period, has expired.
Ha caducado el ejercicio de la pretensión punitiva del Estado respecto de los delitos cometidos hasta el 1ro de marzo de 1985 por funcionarios militares y policiales, equiparados y asimilados, por móviles políticos o en ocasión del cumplimiento de sus funciones y en ocasión de acciones ordenadas por los mandos que actuaron durante el período de facto.

When the dictatorship ended, no political prisoner remained in jail, including the military personnel who were tried for desertion and disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of these military servicemen could not continue their military careers. There is an association in Uruguay of military and police personnel discharged by the putschists (Asociación Militar y Policial de Destituídos por los Golpistas). It has some 200 members who await redress of their situation, meaning the restitution of their careers or professions and/or proper discharge or retirement, which were granted to other dismissed public employees. There are approximately 300 other persons in the same situation.

This response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the DIRB within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

Servicio de Paz y Justicia (SERPAJ-Uruguay), Montevideo. 24 August 1994. Fax received by DIRB.