- About
- Topics
- Picks
- Audio
- Story
- In-Depth
- Opinion
- News
- Donate
-
Signup for our newsletterOur Editors' Best Picks.Send
Read, Debate: Engage.
| topic: | Political violence |
|---|---|
| located: | Bolivia |
| editor: | Ellen Nemitz |
The arrest of Bolivia's former interim president, Jeanine Áñez, at the same time that the government passed Supreme Decree 4461, which forgives several crimes committed between October 2019 and October 2020, reignited the discussion on the integrity of the judicial system in Bolivia.
Áñez governed after Evo Morales left the country in 2019 under fraud accusations and up until Luis Arce´s election in 2020 - (both of them were from the Movement for Socialism party). She was accused of terrorism and sedition in connection with a supposed coup against Morales in 2019.
Reuters reported that the prosecutors allege she used “security force allies to push Morales to resign after contested elections and eventually install herself as interim president.” Áñez, on her part, declared herself innocent. She called the detention an “abuse” and maintained that she took power in a “constitutional succession,” as reported by The Guardian.
Amnesty International expressed concerns about Añez’ arrest. The institution’s Americas director, Erika Guevara-Rosas, drew a connection between Áñez’s detention and the decree, saying that both contribute to biases in the justice system. The scenario was described by her as "a continuation of the pattern of bias in the system of justice that helps perpetuate impunity for human rights violations."
On the other hand, in his article titled Áñez tiene que estar presa (Áñez has to be in jail), journalist Pedro Brieger affirms that there was a coup against Morales, as the army had previously suggested him to resign. “She is not acquitted by the fact that she has then called elections or recognised the triumph of Luis Arce,” he argues, adding that her imprisonment could have a symbolic message: “For Latin American history, the conviction of Jeanine Añez may set a precedent. There may be a before and after. And, in that sense, it is welcome.”
The doubts, though, fall more upon means than upon reasons. During Áñez’s term, there were, indeed, reports of human rights violations (as well as during Morales’ administration). The Executive Director for Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, José Miguel Vivanco, tweeted that “When Añez was president, at least 20 people were killed in two massacres. Witnesses told @HRW that state forces opened fire against protesters.” However, he assesses that “the current charges against Añez do not point to these massacres - and appear to be politically-motivated.”
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch claims that the decree “opens the door to impunity for serious crimes,” as it “provides a blanket amnesty to people prosecuted during the previous government,” but does not specify what crimes would be pardoned. The organisation evaluates that crimes such as arson, abduction and murder could end up without a fair trial. “It appears designed to favor supporters of the pro-government party Movement to Socialism (MAS, in Spanish),” Human Rights Watch said.
At the end, the central issue for the Bolivian government is to guarantee a fair trial to anyone who is accused of committing a crime, both against humanity or corruption. Nor a crime should remain forgotten or should a politician be imprisoned for the wrong reasons. A reliable justice system is one of the basic principles of democracy.
Image: Alain Bachellier.
