Abstract

The Gelman case entails the conviction of Uruguay for violation of the rights to recognition of legal personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty; to the family, to the name, to the rights of children and to nationality, to the protection of the family, to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and has failed to comply with the obligation to adapt its domestic law to the American Convention on Human Rights. Protected by the democratic legitimacy of the referendums that validated the Expiry Law, Uruguay has extended impunity for the crimes of the dictatorship by not executing the sentence. The author criticizes the validity of these exculpatory arguments based on various reasons.