FRESH controversy over alleged war crimes during the Falklands
conflict flared yesterday with a newspaper report that British soldiers
face new accusations of executing wounded Argentine prisoners.
An Argentine war crimes commission was also said to accuse British
troops of using weapons banned by the Geneva arms convention.
News of the commission's unpublished report came days after Scotland
Yard sent a report of its own investigation into war crime allegations
against British soldiers to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, is now deciding
whether there are grounds to prosecute British Servicemen.
The news of the Argentine investigation, reported in the respected
Clarin daily newspaper in Buenos Aires, is bound to stoke further
controversy over the issue.
Clarin said the report carried testimonies from at least four men from
Argentine units involved in the battle for Mount Longdon between June 11
and 1,2 1982, two days before Argentina capitulated.
Former corporal Jose Carrizo said British soldiers shot him in the
head after he was taken prisoner -- a charge supported by another
soldier, Santiago Mambrin, according to the newspaper. British medics
saved Carrizo's life.
Another former soldier, Nestor Flores, said he saw British soldiers
shoot a wounded, unarmed soldier called Quintana; stab to death with a
bayonet another one named Gramissi; and toss a grenade into a foxhole
where a soldier called Delgado lay, the paper reported.
Other witnesses allegedly said the British forced prisoners to
retrieve unexploded cannon and mortar shells from battlegrounds.
Two former soldiers were said to have told the commission that British
combat jets dropped fragmentation bombs -- banned under the Geneva
convention -- on Argentine positions.
No confirmation of the report was available from Argentina's Defence
Ministry, which appointed the commission last year.
The Scotland Yard
investigation was launched after former Paratrouper Vince Bramley
published his account of the Falklands conflict in 1991.
In Excursion to Hell, he detailed allegations of brutal behaviour by a
tiny minority of his comrades, involving claims of execution of
prisoners after the battle for Mount Longdon.
Some of his allegations were later backed by a British officer who
said he witnessed the execution of a wounded Argentine soldier.
Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who has raised the issue in the Commons in the
past, said the Clarin report should be taken seriously.
''One cannot let sleeping dogs lie any longer, if these things are
being spoken of widely,'' said Mr Dalyell, MP for Linlithgow.
''My attitude to this is -- if this is being said by serious people,
we have to get to the truth. The truth may be cleansing.
''I am not saying people should be charged after all this time. But
the truth has to be laid bare if possible.''
But Mr Michael Shersby, a senior Tory back bencher who chairs the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Falkland Islands Group, and is an
adviser to the Police Federation, said: ''We have examined very
carefully allegations made in some quarters, notably in Bramley's book.
''I don't think any other country in the world would have gone to the
extent Britain has gone to to examine those allegations.
''Now it is up to the DPP to decide whether there are grounds for
prosecutions, and if there are, whether it is in the public interest or
not.''
Referring to allegations that British troops used weapons banned by
the Geneva convention on arms, he said: ''I have studied the matter, and
I don't know of any reports at all of British troops using equipment
which contravened the Geneva convention. That is news to me.''
He added that he had seen reports from a number of Argentine
servicemen who said they did not wish to reopen the events of the war,
recognising that all wars were tragedies.
The Ministry of Defence said it was unaware of the latest allegations.
But a spokesman added: ''The point that seems to have come across
generally from the Argentine soldiers involved is that they felt that
the British soldiers on the whole treated them with the utmost fairness
and decency.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article