The minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) voted for the Court to discuss whether the so -called permanent crimes committed during the can be protected by the amnesty law.
The magistrate is a rapporteur of the case of the former deputy at the Court and, through him, therefore, ministers may review the scope of the forgiveness given to military in the period.
The Court judges from this Friday (14) in the virtual plenary if the theme has general repercussion, that is, if the decision that is made in the process of the deputy killed by agents of the exception regime will be valid for all similar cases.
So far, Moraes has been accompanied by Luiz Fux and President Luís Roberto Barroso.
According to the rapporteur, decisions of international cuts dealing with the matter justify the analysis of Brazilian law.
“In other countries, there was also the debate on the legitimacy of norm that granted amnesty, in order to benefit not only those punished by the dictatorial order, but also public agents who committed common crimes under the pretext of fighting dissidents,” he said .
Moraes also made a differentiation between the amnesty debated about the crimes of the authoritarian regime that prevailed in Brazil until 1985 the amnesty currently discussed in the election of Bolsonarists in the case of attacks of 8 January 2023.
“It is the historical-social reality of the migration of the dictatorship to political democracy, the conciliar transition of 1979, which must be considered so that we can discern the meaning of the expression related crimes in Law No. 6.683. Cogitating, not of amnesty, like what some and others today conceive, but which was at the time won, “he said.
This week, the Supreme also committed during the dictatorship has protection of the amnesty law, following the understanding that practice is one, since it is unresolved.
The position was taken in a case about the Araguaia guerrilla, under the rapporteur of Minister Flávio Dino.
O. One of the resources related to the death of the former deputy was closed on January 9. The other, presented in 2021, had not had a decision so far.
The two processes deal with the same theme and are reported by Moraes. The federal provoked the court in one of the actions to argue that certain crimes committed by the dictatorship cannot be amnesty.
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 their 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.
