The Attorney General of the Republic, spoke out this Thursday (21) in favor of closing a case currently being processed in the (Supreme Federal Court), opened by the defendants’ lawyers. On the other hand, he states that the discussion should continue with another, broader action that questions the amnesty of those accused of the former deputy’s murder.
of the military dictatorship, the murder by agents of the regime still has open discussion about whether there is the possibility of punishing the accused involved. On January 20, 1971, Paiva, an engineer and parliamentarian who had been impeached after the 1964 coup, had his house in Rio invaded, was taken to a military unit for testimony and disappeared.
The case of the former parliamentarian is the subject of the film “”. The work is the film adaptation of and tells the story of his mother, Eunice Paiva, and the disappearance of his father. The film is tipped to compete in 2025.
Since the defendants’ defense request was presented to the STF in 2014, three of the five authors have died: Rubens Paim Sampaio, in 2017; Jurandyr Ochsendorf e Souza, in 2019; and Raymundo Ronaldo Campos, in 2020. Jacy Ochsendorf e Souza and José Antônio Nogueira Belham are alive, but the criminal action against them is blocked by a 2019 decision from the (Superior Court of Justice).
“This circumstance necessarily leads to the recognition of the partial loss of the object of the complaint and the request for extension, given the absence of a state punitive claim capable of assessment in relation to those already deceased”, states the .
The suspected military personnel went to the STF to block the action in Rio de Janeiro, through a complaint, citing that the process would be an affront to the Amnesty Law. In September 2014, Minister Teori Zavascki ordered the case to be processed.
But the MPF (Federal) filed an appeal against the STJ’s decision, in 2021. The two processes are under the minister’s report, as they deal with the same issue.
“The extraordinary appeal presents itself as the most appropriate venue for analyzing the issue, not only because it is free from the restrictions imposed by the strict adherence requirements specific to the complaint route, but also because it allows the examination of a more comprehensive set of arguments and elements analysis”, says Gonet at the demonstration.
According to the MPF, decisions by the IACHR (Inter-American Court of Human Rights) open the discussion on the distinction between political crimes covered by the Amnesty Law and crimes against humanity, which would not be protected by legislation.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
