The (Supreme Federal Court) begins this Friday (13) trial to determine whether the Amnesty Law of 1979 covers crimes of concealment of a corpse committed in .
The trial will take place in the virtual plenary until February 24th. He evaluates a complaint from the Federal Public Ministry in Pará against the lieutenant colonels of the Lício Augusto Ribeiro Maciel Army and accused of murder and hiding a corpse during the Araguaia Guerrilla (1972-1974).
As it has general repercussions, the court’s interpretation must be followed by other instances of the Judiciary in similar cases. The first to vote in the virtual system is the rapporteur, minister. Previously, he expressed his understanding that crimes of concealment of a corpse extend over time and, therefore, would not be covered by the law, which covers crimes that occurred from 1961 to 1979.
judged the validity of the Amnesty Law, which focused on the resumption of democracy and forgiveness for victims of exceptional acts, but which was also used to amnesty the military.
That year, the main legal debate was whether the reference to political and related crimes, present in the law, implied common crimes committed by agents of repression and whether the federal law was in accordance with the 1988 Constitution. For the OAB, the extension to the military should be reviewed for violating the constitutional text.
At the time, the understanding of the rapporteur, Eros Grau, prevailed. He stated that the law ignored the doctrinal meaning of criminal connection and extended amnesty to the military, in line with the 1979 political agreement. Only two ministers, Carlos Ayres Britto and , who defended the punishment of torturers, disagreed.
It was also understood that texts subsequent to the law could not affect it and that it was integrated into the Constitution. Despite this, the decision indicated that a review of the pardon, not extending it to military personnel, would be possible, coming from the Legislature.
In the speeches, at that time, the idea that criminal oblivion was desirable thrived in the STF, although the ministers highlighted the importance of repudiating past crimes.
For Eros Grau, himself tortured by the regime, the pardon showed with “complete clarity” what would be the cordial character of the Brazilian people, laid bare “in the succession of frequent amnesties granted among us”.
The then president of the court, Cezar Peluso, ended the session with the same meaning: “Only man forgives. Only a superior society, qualified by the awareness of the highest feelings of humanity is capable of forgiving. Because only a society, which, because it has greatness is greater than its enemies, is capable of surviving”.
The decision generated criticism from jurists and international entities. Almost 16 years later, the case has a lawsuit attached, motions for clarification pending and has not become final. The topic also appears in processes that discuss whether crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping can be covered by the law, such as the disappearance of former deputy Rubens Paiva, portrayed in the film “”.
CRITIQUES
According to Álvaro Palma de Jorge, professor at FGV Direito Rio, the fact that the 2010 decision has not become final leaves open the possibility of a general review of the law, although this is unlikely.
“As there were subsequent international conventions, especially in this case where the process is still ongoing, it is possible to envisage the Supreme Court looking at a change in jurisprudence, including because the composition of the court changed. But it would be quite exceptional.”
one of the most well-known victims of the regime, criticizes the STF for not having finalized the 2010 process. “Brazilian justice does not legislate, does not define, it ends up becoming an incentive because it brings a feeling of impunity to those who commit these coup d’état crimes.”
He calls the ministers’ perception of the need for criminal oblivion, seen in the 2010 trial, “very inadequate”. According to Glenda Mezarobba, political scientist and advisor at the Vladimir Herzog Institute, such speech is “drenched in a logic constructed by the dictatorship itself.”
According to family members of victims of the military regime, the issue is also pressing given the more recent context involving an issue that could reach the court: the possible reduction of sentences for the former president (), sentenced to 27 years in prison for an attempted coup.
For them, the reduction of sentences sets a bad example in a country marked by impunity. This is the interpretation of Marcelo Ribeiro, son of Walter de Souza Ribeiro, a retired military officer whose remains have not yet been located.
“An amnesty is the same as saying that this [inúmeras tentativas de golpe na ] you can continue. Likewise if there is a reduction in sentence. It is to make it clear that this state of affairs that has persisted for years can remain in Brazil.”
Lúcia Merlino, cousin of Luiz Eduardo Merlino, a journalist tortured and killed by the regime, says that “values would be vilified again” with amnesty for Bolsonaro. “I defended and idolized Ustra, who killed my cousin, and was the agent of the last coup.”
Project presented in Congress reducing sentences for those convicted of coup plotting was approved last year, but vetoed by President Lula. If the law is enacted, there is the possibility of judicialization, and the issue may also reach the Supreme Court.
