Transitional Law and Democracy: late responsibility for torture and other atrocities that ocurred in brazilian Military Coup
| Autor | Mauro Benente - Irene Patricia Nohara - Silvio Luiz Almeida |
| Cargo | Faculdade de Direito de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, SP, Brasil - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, SP, Brasil |
| Páginas | 10-29 |
Recebido em: 17/07/2019
Revisado em: 23/07/2020
Aprovado em: 27/07/2020
http://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2020v41n85p10
Direito autoral e licença de uso: Este artigo está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons.Com essa licença você
pode compartilhar, adaptar, para qualquer fim, desde que atribua a autoria da obra, forneça um link para a licença, e
indicar se foram feitas alterações.
Transitional Law and Democracy: late
responsibility for torture and other atrocities that
ocurred in brazilian Military Coup
Direito de Transição e Democracia: responsabilidade tardia pela tortura e
outras atrocidades ocorridas na Ditadura Militar brasileira
Mauro Benente1
Irene Patricia Nohara2
Silvio Luiz Almeida2
1Faculdade de Direito de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
2Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
Abstract: The main purpose of this study is
to focus on the consequences of torture and
other atrocities occurred during the Brazilian
military coup. Through hypothetical-deductive
and inductive methods, it aims to expose the
decision of the Supreme Court concerning the
Amnesty Law, international condemnation of
Brazil in Araguaia case and the responsibility
of the State for the death and disappearance
of the bodies, including lack of transparency,
which are significant worries about transitional
law rules. It concerns not only the past, but
also has prospective effects, as taking the state
oppression out of invisibility contributes to the
consolidation of democracy.
Keywords: Transitional Law. Democracy.
Brazilian Military Coup.
Resumo: O principal objetivo do presente es-
tudo é analisar as consequências da tortura e de
outras atrocidades ocorridas no Brasil na dita-
dura militar. Por meio do emprego dos métodos
hipotético-dedutivo e indutivo, procura-se expor
a decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal no tocan-
te à extensão interpretativa da Lei de Anistia, a
condenação internacional do Brasil no caso Ara-
guaia, diante das mortes e do desaparecimento
forçado de corpos, incluindo a falta de transpa-
rência, sendo essas as preocupações da Justiça
de Transição. Trata-se de assunto que diz respei-
to não apenas ao passado, mas que tem efeitos
prospectivos, pois trazer da invisibilidade o tema
da opressão estatal é uma medida que contribui
para a consolidação da democracia.
Palavras-chave: Justiça de Transição. Demo-
cracia. Ditadura Militar Brasileira.
Seqüência (Florianópolis), n. 85, p. 10-29, ago. 2020 11
Mauro Benente – Irene Patricia Nohara – Silvio Luiz Almeida
1 Introduction
Until recent times, there was the tendency of denying reparation to
those persecuted and tortured in “the cellars” of the Brazilian dictatorship
(1964 to 1985). The argument used by the judiciary internal system was
the prescription of the claim, based on the terms established by a public
law from 1932, which determined a five-year period of time to sue the
State. Few of the tortured people were able to sue the State in this limited
period of time, particularly due to the existing context. Fear strongly
marked their “open scars” in view of the permanent repression policy in
effect. The Amnesty Law (Public Act 6683, from 1979) was imposed by a
“slow, gradual and safe” democratic transition.
The amnesty discourse was arbitrarily imposed since it aimed
to include “both sides”. It embraced people that were condemned for
political crimes, as well as those exiled and also the persecuted by the
repressive government, who are actually the ones that should be benefited
by amnesty measures, but also tried to cover the agents that handled the
repressive system and perpetrated crimes against humanity.
That was part of a political agreement between transitional
civilian forces, which did not embrace all sectors of society, and the
Armed Forces. They managed to put an end to the problem by editing
the mentioned Amnesty Law. However, it was not an adequate solution,
as Brazil had signed, with the United Nations, prior to the repression,
some human rights treaties which did not allow for prescription of crimes
against humanity.
The Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice decided (2 T.,
Min. Fux, Resp 529804-PR, REsp 379414 PR 2001/0152521-2, Rel Min.
José Delgado, j. 25.11.2002, STJ) that this kind of offense in fundamental
rights does not subsume to the prescriptive terms of the Decree n. 20.910,
from 1932, nor to the Civil Code. Then, such claims were considered
imprescriptible. It represented an official recognition that the state must
indemnify the damage caused by torture and persecution even after the
limited period of time established by internal legislation since these were
severe crimes committed against human dignity.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO