We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2024
Except for the reparations programs which assisted some of the victims, after 1985 the transition scenario in Brazil remained unchanged for more the 20 years. In fact, although victims and family members of the disappeared never ceased to discuss the topic, it was only at the beginning of 2010 that the societal debate regarding the right to truth and memory made a return, reinforcing the theory that reluctance pervades the local experience with Transitional Justice. The proof of this uncertain process is in the decisions in two cases, filed in different judicial levels, had opposite outcomes. These cases were (i) Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil (the Araguaia Case), under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACtHR), decided on November 24, 2010, and (ii) Allegation of Disobedience of a Fundamental Precept (Argüição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental – ADFP ) no. 153, filed by the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association of Brazil (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil – OAB) in the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF), decided on April 28, 2010. The following analysis of both cases is useful to forming a broad view of the judicial pillar of Transitional Justice in the Brazilian experience.
4.1. NATIONAL TRIALS
4.1.1. THE STF’S JUDGMENT ON THE LEGALITY OF THE 1979 AMNESTY LAW: CONTINUITY WITH THE PAST
Under Brazilian law, the STF has the power to rule on the constitutionality of any statutes. In light of this authority, the Federal Council of the OAB challenged the legitimacy of the Brazilian Amnesty Law, Law no. 6,683 (1979), in a case known as ADFP no. 153. In that case, the initial petition requested that the STF declare that amnesty granted under the law should not extend to crimes committed by agents of the State against political opponents. In the Brazilian legal system, a reporting judge (or justice in the higher courts) drafts an opinion which the other members of the court either follow or reject. In ADFP no. 153, the reporting justice ruled that the Amnesty Law was in compliance with the Constitution and rejected the plaintiff’s claims, a ruling which the majority endorsed by a vote of 7 to 2.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
