In Argentina, tensions rise as accusations resurface about past abuses and political rhetoric sparks fresh controversy
Amid ongoing debates about whether operatives from a past dictatorship should face release or continued accountability, the organization HIJOS, representing disappeared individuals, raised a grave accusation. An HIJOS member reportedly endured an assault at home, being beaten, threatened, and subjected to coercive intimidation by two intruders who declared they were not stealing but killing, claiming they were paid to carry out such acts. HIJOS framed the incident as a politically charged act tied to a government seen by some as leaning far right, arguing that the tragedy of the dictatorship remains a live issue in the national conversation and continues to inform public life in the country.
The attack, which had no prior criminal record and occurred on March 5, was disclosed only a few days later. The victim’s identity was kept confidential, and reports indicated that the assailants left graffiti reading “VLLC (Long live freedom, damn it),” a phrase commonly used by President Javier Milei to close speeches and sign executive decisions.
In response, HIJOS filed a complaint with both police and judicial authorities, describing the event as a political assault. The group stressed that nothing of material value was taken, only folders containing information about their organization were stolen, highlighting the targeted nature of the act.
The episode comes ahead of a national day of memory marking another anniversary of the 1970s coup. On the upcoming Sunday, thousands of people are expected to gather in central Buenos Aires to condemn attempts to undermine the record of state terrorism. Earlier in March, when the legislative assembly opened, Milei mocked the figure of 30,000 disappeared individuals. The figure remains controversial in Argentina, where the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) tallied around 9,000 victims upon the return to democracy in 1984. The totals have been debated for decades, with some sources suggesting higher estimates and other states offering provisional figures until a full governmental accounting is achieved. A 1978 U.S. embassy report cited Army sources mentioning roughly 22,000 such episodes.
HIJOS insisted that the assault bears a clear link to the rhetoric and hate speech occasionally voiced by senior government figures, arguing that inflammatory language can fuel violence against activists and human rights groups.
The following section examines the official response to these events and the broader political context surrounding the memory of state violence in Argentina.
The government’s stance and public reactions
Human rights organizations expressed concern about a perceived tolerance for inflammatory messages on social media and partial retractions from high-profile officials. Critics noted that a public figure had liked a post questioning the attack and then echoed a follower who doubted the assault, prompting accusations that political leadership was leveraging public sentiment to undermine memory work and victims’ rights. A prominent commentator labeled such tactics as undermining the credibility of survivors and advocacy groups.
In the days ahead, the government planned to release a short film presenting its own interpretation of the nation’s dark history. The vice president, a former legal scholar and advocate for victims, has been active in shaping this narrative, promoting a formal reassessment of past violence. Her career has included leadership of a legal center focused on terrorism and its victims, an organization that has pushed debates about comparing state violence with actions by militant groups. The judiciary has resisted some of these equivalences, with courts historically upholding legal distinctions in cases involving crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, the defense minister offered remarks that some saw as defensive, lamenting the portrayal of the armed forces as sole villains of the era. Despite belonging to a political party that long criticized or challenged past prosecutions, the minister appeared in public settings alongside families seeking the end of sentences, signaling a nuanced stance within the government on accountability and reconciliation.
Presidential spokespeople clarified that no indult was imminent, stressing that the president holds exclusive constitutional authority over such measures and that legal barriers exist for crimes of humanity. Commentary in the press emphasized the ongoing legal and moral debates surrounding amnesty, responsibility, and how to balance truth-telling with political pragmatism in a deeply polarized society.
This complex moment highlights how memory, law, and politics intersect in a country still grappling with the legacy of a dictatorship. The public discourse continues to revolve around how to view the past, how to commemorate victims, and how to ensure that democratic institutions reliably confront periods of repression without erasing or sanitizing their consequences.