Abstract

The aim of this article is to describe the tensions and contradictions that arise in the process of institutionalising memory through public policies on comprehensive reparation, particularly those designed to address mental health issues stemming from the consequences of the dictatorships in Argentina and Uruguay. A qualitative methodology was employed, involving a documentary analysis of 46 public policies, various field observations and interviews with qualified informants. The main findings indicate that, whilst the wide range of policies is significant, the responses are fragmented, highlighting the difficulties in accessing specialised services and the lack of continuity in the provision of care. This is evident in both Argentina and Uruguay. Another finding suggests that mental health is addressed through public policies, alongside other policies; however, for this to become a comprehensive form of reparation, it must be based on a specific paradigm of political trauma. This approach brings together three fundamental aspects: psychoanalytic or relational clinical practice, the human rights perspective, and public policies.