The majority of agents involved in human rights violations during the Brazilian Civil War die before the trial or even before the Federal MPF is reported). This is what research carried out by the Human Rights Clinic at the Federal University of the State of São Paulo points out.
According to the survey, at least 96 of the 139 people involved died before being convicted or reported for the violations in which they participated. The number is equivalent to 69% and was calculated under the coordination of professor Carla Osmo, from . The count does not include suspects who are not named in complaints.
The project involved students Isabelle Macedo Gaiatto, Isadora Coelho Lemos e Carvalho and Sophia Bianchim de Camargo and was requested by Conectas Human Rights. The results emerge in a context of international recognition of the country’s inability to investigate and punish events that occurred during the military regime (1964-1985).
In December, a case was made public for human rights violations in the . In 2010, the country was condemned for facts that occurred but were not investigated during the Araguaia Guerrilla, between the 1960s and 1970s. Subsequently, in 2018, the Court condemned Brazil for the murder of , in 1975.
The 2025 case dealt with the torture and murder of Eduardo Leite, known as Bacuri, in addition to the torture suffered by his then partner, Denise Crispim, who was pregnant at the time of the events. The couple’s daughter, Eduarda, and Denise’s partner after Bacuri’s death, Leonardo Ditta, also appear in the action.
The MPF had already closed two criminal investigations into the case. The first was buried in 2013, under the argument that the crimes raised were time-barred. In the second case, which ended in 2024, the justification was the death of possible perpetrators, their age or the impossibility of contacting them.
“The passage of time is directly proportional to the limitation — and, in some cases, the impossibility of obtaining evidence and/or testimony, making it difficult and even rendering null or ineffective the practice of evidentiary measures with the aim of clarifying the facts subject to investigation, identifying possible authors and participants and determining possible criminal responsibilities”, says the decision.
Created in 1979, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights makes up the human rights protection system of the OAS (Organization of American States). The judicial body emerged from the Pact of San José in Costa Rica, the city where the court is located.
“The first decision of the Inter-American Court on the military dictatorship dealt with forced disappearances, but the jurisprudence on the impossibility of amnesties in cases of serious violations is not restricted to cases of forced disappearance. Therefore, in cases of serious violations and crimes against humanity there cannot be an amnesty or prescription that prevents criminal liability”, says the professor.
According to the research coordinated by Osmo, the MPF presented 53 complaints between 2012 and 2022. Of these, 32 were rejected. Furthermore, of the complaints admitted, none resulted in a definitive conviction of the accused, and the two convictions in the first instance were later reversed.
The also points out that there are at least 10 appeals pending judgment in , and 9 of them were concentrated in four general repercussions. One of them is under the minister’s rapporteur (topic 1,369) and talks about the impossibility of applying the Amnesty Law to permanent crimes, such as hiding bodies.
The other three general repercussions (themes 1,374, 1,375 and 1,376) are reported by and contain identical statements. The debate in these cases is about the possibility of amnesty for crimes classified as serious human rights violations.
Renan Quinalha, also a law professor at Unifesp, states that there is a certain difficulty in understanding “the scope and reach” of the impacts of the dictatorship. He celebrates, for example, that the Inter-American Court specifically recognized the violations that Denise suffered as a case of violence against women.
He criticizes, however, the way the Supreme Court conducts the debate on the punishment of crimes committed under the military regime. “This same Supreme Court, which has a very ruthless stance towards the acts of January 8th, needs to value a democratic culture and respect for institutions and human rights”, says Quinalha.
