After 54 years, one of the AD has no definition of the possibility of punishing the accused, now protected by the Amnesty Law.
One of the appeals related to the death of the former deputy was closed on the 9th (Supreme Court). The other, presented in 2021, had no decision yet.
The two processes deal with the same theme and are reported by the minister. Through the case, the Supreme Court may also review the scope of the Amnesty Law. The federal provoked the court in one of the actions to argue that certain crimes committed by the dictatorship cannot be amnesty.
On November 21, the Attorney General of the Republic, manifested himself for the closure of one of the lawsuits, opened by the defendants’ lawyers, under the understanding that part of those involved has already died. The request was accepted by the rapporteur. On the other hand, the one who questions the amnesty of the military.
The murder of Rubens Paiva and the state’s response to crime have been generating debates in recent months in the wake of the success of the movie “I’m Still Here”, which was nominated for best movie this week and portrays the trajectory of widow Eunice Paiva in search by justice.
Those accused of killing the former deputy went to the Supreme Court to try to block the action that ran in the Federal Court, on the grounds that the process would violate the amnesty law.
Since the defendant’s defense request in 2014, three of the five plaintiffs died: Rubens Paim Sampaio in 2017; Jurandyr Ochsendorf and Souza, in 2019; and Raymundo Ronaldo Campos, in 2020.
Jacy Ochsendorf and Souza and José Antônio Nogueira Bilham are alive, but the criminal action against them is locked by a decision of the (Superior Court of Justice). The MPF appealed from the Supreme Tracking in 2021.
The Attorney General defends the continuity of the discussion of the case in this appeal. According to the request, decisions of the CIDH (Inter -American Court of) distinguish political crimes from those of Lesa Humanity, which could not be protected by the law of amnesty.
In practice, the agency reinforces a thesis presented to the Court twice, but without judgment for over a decade. This differentiation would allow the judgment of military and civilians who were part of the repression.
The MPF understands that the historical period was not properly passed clean. Still, it argues that the Supreme can evaluate that it did not give a clear enough message in the trial that validated the Amnesty Law in 2010, and considers it important to reinforce that military should be kept far from politics.
“The matter questioned involves, in fact, the very incompatibility of the amnesty law with the Brazilian constitutional order and the international standards for protection of human rights, already recognized by the condemnations suffered by the Brazilian State before the Inter -American Court of Human Rights,” he says Gonet, in one of the demonstrations.
Court advisors and prosecutors heard by the Sheet They evaluate that the action would be an opportunity to give more clarity to the consequences of attacks on democracy. Rubens Paiva’s process would have the potential to cause the terms of amnesty to review the idea of continued crime.
In the present case of the former deputy, it is the crime of concealment of corpse: the Brazilian state still owes the information of the site of the body of Rubens Paiva. Therefore, according to the Attorney’s Office, the crime could not be amnesty.
The amnesty has not been debated by the Supreme Court since the decision to validate the terms defined in 1979 by the last president of the dictatorship, the. The 2010 decision protected agents who repressed resistance and opponents who committed crimes in the exception period. Part of the debate, however, was pending.
The (Brazilian Bar Association) questioned excerpts from the decision in which the Supreme Court validated the amnesty to torturers and filed a similar request in 2014: they want not to apply the amnesty to crimes committed by public agents of the regime.
In PSOL’s action, reported by the minister, the rapporteur’s dispatches over the past six years are only on secondary issues. There has never been a decision in the process. The OAB appeal has been stopped in court for 12 years.
