The situation of detainees in Domingo Arena prison, officially Unit No. 8 of the National Institute of Rehabilitation (INR), has once again become the center of political and legal debate in Uruguay. There are strong criticisms of the judicial processes related to alleged crimes against humanity committed during the civic-military period from 1973 to 1985. In both instances, the citizenry decided to maintain the law, understood as a mechanism to close the chapter of internal confrontation and preserve democratic stability. For critical sectors, the reopening of criminal cases despite these popular ratifications implies a direct violation of the Rule of Law and a forced reinterpretation of the current legal framework. They argue that as long as there are political prisoners or convictions handed down without strict respect for due process, the Rule of Law remains incomplete. The debate over Domingo Arena thus once again exposes a deep fracture in Uruguayan society regarding how to judge the recent past and to what extent criminal justice can go without violating the basic foundations of the democratic system. Sources consulted include the Uruguayan press, regional media, independent legal analyses, and statements from defense lawyers and critical organizations of the process. They maintain that norms were 'twisted' with an ideological and vengeful criterion, prioritizing a political reading of the past over the principles of legality, non-retroactivity of criminal law, and due process. Criticisms are especially focused on the performance of the prosecutor's office headed by Ricardo Perciballe, who is attributed with a marked ideological bias. In addition, the use of false or inconsistent testimonies, accepted by the courts, was denounced, which later resulted in the payment of million-dollar compensations to the declarants, interpreted by critics as an indirect form of retribution. For those who hold these positions, both in Uruguay and Argentina, the existence of people deprived of their liberty based on flawed processes, weak evidence, and exceptional legal criteria prevents speaking of a full democracy. It is also pointed out that some prosecutors linked to these cases have family ties with former militants of armed organizations from the 1970s, which, according to the complainants, would compromise the objectivity of the investigations. This debate finds a direct parallel with what happened in Argentina, where trials against military and police for events linked to the 1970s are heavily questioned by broad legal and political sectors. The accusations are based, for the most part, on testimonies of alleged victims, without documentary support or conclusive material evidence, according to defense lawyers and critical analysts of the process. According to these complaints, dozens—and even hundreds—of former members of armed organizations such as the Tupamaros and militants linked to the Communist Party would have accused military and police officers for events that occurred more than four decades ago. In that country, it is objected that many of the accused were judged with laws sanctioned after the facts, in open contradiction with the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. According to these versions, once the witnesses testified and their testimonies were judicially accepted, they subsequently accessed million-dollar compensations, which is pointed out as an economic incentive that casts doubt on the impartiality and truthfulness of the accounts. From a legal point of view, one of the central axes of the questioning is the validity of the Law of Extinguishment of the State's Punitive Claim, approved by the Uruguayan Parliament in 1986. Various sectors denounce that in that establishment there are military, police, and civilians considered political prisoners, in a country that defines itself as fully democratic. Currently, Domingo Arena houses between 32 and 35 former members of the Armed Forces, the Police, and some civilians, convicted or processed in cases promoted by the Prosecutor's Office for Crimes Against Humanity, headed by Prosecutor Ricardo Perciballe. In many files, the cases are based almost exclusively on oral accounts, in which it is stated that a certain officer or non-commissioned officer participated in mistreatment or abuse during detentions that occurred in the 1970s. Critics of these processes affirm that 'prepared witness' schemes were formed, who presented themselves repeatedly before the courts to 'identify' the accused.
