On 22 December 1986, the legislature approved the Law of Expiration of Punitive Claims of the State. Article 1 of the law stated that “as a result of the events stemming from the agreement between political parties and the armed forces in August 1984 and in order to complete the transition to full constitutional order, criminal claims of the State have expired with regard to crimes committed before 1 March 1985 by the military and police officers for political reasons or in the performance of their duties ordered by officers who served during the de facto period.” Everything started with the Naval Club Pact held on 3 August 1984.

This meeting, held between political party and military leaders, was decisive for the return to democracy after eleven years of military dictatorship in Uruguay. While no one ever knew exactly the contents of the pact, it is speculated that the military negotiated the return to democracy in exchange for not being judged for crimes that were committed during the dictatorship, including rape, murder and “disappearances.”

The Nacional Party, led by Wilson Ferreira Adulate, was banned from the meeting. With the return of democracy , the first allegations against the armed forces for human rights violations began arriving at the courts. Days before assuming office, incoming President Julio María Sanguinetti, stated his intentions to take the military officers to court. Asked by a reporter about whether amnesty would be given, the president elect said “no,” since “(the military) had not asked for it and because no one would give it to them.” Military officials, however, were unwilling to stand trial and began legal maneuvers to avoid it. One was to shift the trials against the military authorities to military courts.

The government then proposed that only the highest officials be tried in military courts and with severe penalties. Only about 12 officers were to be tried, even though about 3,000 were directly or indirectly involved in human rights violations. The opposition strongly objected to this and demanded that all involved should be tried in civilian courts, not only a few scapegoats. Given the situation, the government appealed to fear, one of its fundamental weapons when pardoning the military, which would be used in the future on several occasions.

Official messages from the government spoke of “a rising uneasiness in the barracks” and the possibility of another coup if the military was forced to go to civilian courts for trials. Phrases such as “general insubordination” and “collective contempt” were used by the government to discuss the issue. In August 1986, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the use of military courts to try military members for human rights violations during the dictatorship.

Immediately, the Colorado Party introduced a bill to grant amnesty to military and police accused of human rights violations. Once more, the initiative was strongly rejected by the opposition. In September, the Nacional Party agreed to find a political solution, and proposed that the Supreme Court, not “common” judges, carry out the trials and that only the offenders of the most serious crimes be tried. Once, an agreement could not be found.

The Colorado Party believed that the initiative was too “harsh” and the Frente Amplio said it was too “soft.” Finally, a judge called a group of military members to appear in court on 22 December 1986 to testify on the allegations of human rights violations. However, five days before the planned trial, the Colorado Party sent a new amnesty bill to Parliament. At the same time, Wilson Ferreira Aldunate, leader of the Nacional Party, managed to persuade legislators to draft a different bill, but with the same purpose: preventing the military from being tried. In an unprecedented session held during the weekend prior to Monday, 22 December (legislators convened on Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning), the bill was approved.

All Colorado Party senators voted for the bill. Most Nacional Party MPs also voted for the bill, with the exception of the National Movement of Rocha faction. The Frente Amplio voted against it. Dr. Enrique Tarigo, then president of the Chamber of Deputies and Vice President of the Republic, made a long speech during the passage of the bill. At the request of Wilson Ferreira Aldunate, who warned about institutional instability if it was not passed, Tarigo justified the hasty passage of the law. At this time, army commander Hugo Medina’s decision to not send the judicial citations to his subordinates was made public. As such, Medina assumed responsibility for the military officers’ contempt.