The Constitution and Legislation Commission of the Senate approved with the votes of the government coalition the bill that modifies the house arrest, one of the initiatives promoted by Town meeting that were used as “bargaining currency” in the negotiation for social security reform in Uruguay.
Several months—and internal conflicts—passed until the house arrest for those over 65 years of age took his first firm step at the parliamentary level; and more than two years of discussion were necessary to reach this moment in which the text presented by the nationalist senator Carmen Asiaín, which included lobbying proposals as well as academic and legislative suggestions, moved towards debate in the plenary session of the Upper House.
At the time, the proposal had generated controversy in the sectors defending the Human rights since, although the initiative of the party led by Guido Manini Ríos excluded from the possibility of accessing the benefit people who were prosecuted for crimes of rape, aggravated homicide and Crimes against humanitythe majority of the dictatorship’s repressors have not been charged with these latest crimes – but with homicide, torture and kidnapping – so there was a risk that more than 20 repressors arrested in jail Sunday Arena they obtained house arrest.
This was also the argument used by the Wide Front to oppose from the first moment, and vote against the project that saw the green light in the Constitution and Legislation Commission.
What does the approved project propose?
In June 2022, Asiaín presented a new project that, although it was the basis that was voted on in commission, had a series of modifications throughout your treatment.
In this sense, the approved project does not contemplate the possibility of granting the benefit “ex officio and without further formalities”, but rather lists the “elements of special relevance” that Justice must take into account for “the replacement or cessation of preventive detention or other precautionary measures.” Among them, the main one is that the person “was 65 years old or older”, when this “does not involve risks considering the circumstances of the crime accused.”
Likewise, the text that, “at the request of a party”, the competent court may order the release under certain circumstances, such as “when the party formalized suffers serious health problems or one disease incurable in the terminal period.”
Also “when it comes to a pregnant woman with health risk for herself or with risk for the continuation of the pregnancy”, or in the case of a mother “in charge of a child over five years of age who suffered from health problems or did not have another person to take care of him” .
In the specific case of people deprived of liberty over 65 years of age, the project establishes that, in addition to age, it must be evaluated whether the “biopsychosocial condition” of the person “will determine that deprivation of liberty in a prison establishment harms their health or “It violates their human dignity.” Thus, in any case, “the judicial decision must be based on the medical board reports appointed by the judge”, which must include “reports of medical and psychological experts and social”.
Source: Ambito
