Challenging the Ineffectiveness of International Judgments in Cases of Crimes Against Humanity Committed by Agents of the Brazilian State During Political Repression: Jus Cogens and the Statute of Limitations
| Páginas | 36-68 |
| Fecha | 01 Noviembre 2024 |
| Autor | Luiz Guilherme Arcaro Conci,Marcelo Carita Correr |
| Materia | Derecho Público y Administrativo |
36
Article recieved on 16.09.2024 and accepted for publication on 25.10.2024.
ESTUDIOS CONSTITUCIONALES
ISSN 0718-0195 · Vol. 22 · Núm. 2 · 2024 · pp. 36-68 · DOI: 10.4067/S0718-52002024000200036
Challenging the Ineectiveness of International
Judgments in Cases of Crimes Against Humanity Committed
by Agents of the Brazilian State During Political Repression:
Jus Cogens and the Statute of Limitations
Cuestionando la inecacia de las sentencias internacionales en el caso de
crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos por agentes del estado brasileño en el
contexto de la represión política: ius cogens e imprescriptibilidad
Luiz Guilherme ArcAro conci1
Marcelo cAritA correrA2
Abstract: This paper explores whether Brazilian state agents can be criminally prosecuted
for ordinary crimes committed between 1961 and 1985, classied as serious human rights
violations. Despite the 1979 amnesty law upheld by Brazil’s Supreme Court, it does not satis-
fy conventionality requirements. Therefore, the statute of limitations does not apply to these
crimes, as they violate Jus Cogens, which overrides domestic laws. The main objective here is
to override the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice. This
paper uses the logical-deductive method, relying on a bibliographic review and precedents
from the Inter-American Court and Brazilian judgments.
Keywords: Amnesty, crimes against humanity, statute of limitations, repression.
Resumen: Este trabajo arma que agentes del Estado brasileño pueden ser perseguidos penal-
mente por delitos comunes, cometidos entre 1961 y 1985, clasicados como graves violacio-
nes de los derechos humanos. La ley de amnistía de 1979, que fue conrmada por el Tribunal
Supremo de Brasil, no cumple los requisitos de convencionalidad. La prescripción no se aplica
a estos crímenes, ya que violan el Jus Cogens, que prevalece sobre las leyes nacionales. Intenta
superar la jurisprudencia del Supremo Tribunal y del Superior Tribunal de Justicia. Utiliza
1 Professor of undergraduate, master and doctoral studies (Law School) and master´s in Global Governance and Public
International Policies (International Relations Department) at Pontical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP). Full
Professor at the Faculty of Law of São Bernardo do Campo. Has a Phd and Livre-Docencia (Habilitation) in Law at PUC-SP,
São Paulo, Brazil, e-mail: lgaconci@pucsp.br. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8502-8990.
2 PhD in Criminal Procedural Law and a master’s in criminal law at PUC-SP—specialist in Economic Criminal Law at
FGV-SP. São Paulo, Brazil, e-mail: mcorrera@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-9781.
Challenging the ineffeCtiveness of international Judgments in Cases of Crimes against humanity Committed
by agents of the brazilian state during PolitiCal rePression: Jus Cogens and the statute of limitations
37
ESTUDIOS CONSTITUCIONALES
ISSN 0718-0195 · Vol. 22 · Núm. 2 · 2024 · pp. 36-68 · DOI: 10.4067/S0718-52002024000200036
el método lógico-deductivo, apoyándose en una revisión bibliográca y en precedentes de la
Corte Interamericana y sentencias brasileñas.
Palabras clave: Amnistía, crímenes contra la humanidad, prescripción, represión.
1. Introductory Remarks
This article seeks to analyze the feasibility of criminal prosecution and recognition of the
non-application of the statute of limitations for common crimes, considered severe human
rights violations, committed during the period of democratic exception from 1964 to 1985.
The methodological approach uses the logical-deductive method, based on a bibliographical
review of Brazilian and foreign authors and precedents from the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (IACHR), international criminal courts, and Brazilian courts.
It aims not only to oer a legal response to the question of criminal prosecution for cri-
mes against humanity but also to establish their relationship with the Brazilian Amnesty Law
and to oer a hermeneutic proposal for overcoming the current obstacles to execute the two
judgments against Brazil by the IACHR: Gomes Lund3 and Vladimir Herzog4.
In Brazil, the phenomenon of the exception to the Democratic State began in 1964, was
exacerbated in 1968, and was only brought to an end with the promulgation of the Federal
Constitution of 1988, which included, among its fundamental principles, the Democratic
State governed by the Rule of Law.
The breakdown of the democratic order led to the systematic persecution and torture of
opponents of the regime, including kidnappings, murders, banishments, forced disappearan-
ces, and the concealment of human corpses.
Based on a supposed national conciliation, six years before the end of the exception period,
an Amnesty Law5 was passed, which in theory granted immunity for political and related
crimes committed between September 2, 1961, and August 15, 1979.
However, the re-establishment of the democratic State of law has led to signicant ques-
tions about the scope and compatibility of the amnesty law with the new regime in light of
3 IACHR: Gomes Lund e outros vs. Brasil, 2010.
4 IACHR: Herzog e outros vs. Brasil, 2018.
5 Law no. 6.683 (1979).
ESTUDIOS CONSTITUCIONALES
ISSN 0718-0195 · Vol. 22 · Núm. 2 · 2024 · pp. 36-68 · DOI: 10.4067/S0718-52002024000200036
L. ArcAro conci
M. cAritA correrA ArtícuLo de investigAción
38
international law. That is because some common crimes committed by state agents would be
considered crimes against humanity insofar as the attacks were not directed at individuals
or specic groups but were oenses that aected the whole of society. Between September
2, 1961, and August 15, 1979, these common crimes would be considered crimes against
humanity.
The research focused on the prevalence of the Inter-American System rules for the Pro-
tection of Human Rights and the precedents of the IACHR, the apex supranational judicial
body, regarding the application of International Human Rights Law in Brazil6. From another
perspective, the research also focused on the rules of international law that Brazil has not
ratied but which must be respected by all countries as Jus Cogens, in the same way, that there
was individual criminal responsibility at Nuremberg7. In other words, it must be observed
regardless of the State’s consent.
It is essential to point out that (a) the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF), in the judgment of
two cases (Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental8), that have not yet been
nalized, with the erga omnes application, which allows direct access to the Supreme Court
through complaints in case of non-compliance9, has upheld that the 1979 Amnesty Law is
valid in the legal system and covers crimes against people committed in the context of politi-
cal dierences, that the (b) referred law was conrmed by the Constitutional Amendment10,
which started the process for a new Constitution, that (c) the courts have not denitively
decided the question which is still being contested nowadays, as we will discuss, and that
(d) after the judgment of the ADPF 15311, Brazil was convicted in two cases by the IACHR,
Gomes Lund and Vladimir Herzog, when the Court stated that the amnesty law was incom-
patible with the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights norms.
The main problem arises from the resistance of some national courts and legal scholars
to apply the decisions made by the IACHR against the Brazilian State. To overcome these
obstacles, which are of dubious legality, we will discuss their impracticability in light of the
argument that crimes against humanity are part of Jus Cogens and, therefore, any possibility of
using the statute of limitations must be ruled out. It is also necessary to analyze, as proposed
6 Silva (2021), p. 88.
7 Assis (2022), p. 251.
8 STF: ADPF 153.
9 Bossi (2021), p. 119.
10 Constitutional Amendment nº 26 (1985).
11 STF: ADPF 153.
STF: ADPF 320.
Para continuar leyendo
Comienza GratisAccede a todo el contenido con una prueba gratuita de 7 días
Transforma tu investigación jurídica con vLex
-
Accede a resúmenes de sentencias generados por IA, que destacan al instante los aspectos jurídicos clave.
-
Realiza búsquedas avanzadas con opciones precisas de filtrado y ordenamiento.
-
Consulta contenido jurídico completo de más de 100 jurisdicciones, incluyendo una amplia colección de libros y revistas a texto completo.
-
Disfruta de funcionalidades exclusivas como comparador de versiones de una ley, notas de vigencia, análisis de citas, y mucho más.
-
Con la confianza de más de 2 millones de profesionales, incluidas las firmas más importantes del mundo.
Accede a todo el contenido con una prueba gratuita de 7 días
Transforma tu investigación jurídica con vLex
-
Accede a resúmenes de sentencias generados por IA, que destacan al instante los aspectos jurídicos clave.
-
Realiza búsquedas avanzadas con opciones precisas de filtrado y ordenamiento.
-
Consulta contenido jurídico completo de más de 100 jurisdicciones, incluyendo una amplia colección de libros y revistas a texto completo.
-
Disfruta de funcionalidades exclusivas como comparador de versiones de una ley, notas de vigencia, análisis de citas, y mucho más.
-
Con la confianza de más de 2 millones de profesionales, incluidas las firmas más importantes del mundo.
Accede a todo el contenido con una prueba gratuita de 7 días
Transforma tu investigación jurídica con vLex
-
Accede a resúmenes de sentencias generados por IA, que destacan al instante los aspectos jurídicos clave.
-
Realiza búsquedas avanzadas con opciones precisas de filtrado y ordenamiento.
-
Consulta contenido jurídico completo de más de 100 jurisdicciones, incluyendo una amplia colección de libros y revistas a texto completo.
-
Disfruta de funcionalidades exclusivas como comparador de versiones de una ley, notas de vigencia, análisis de citas, y mucho más.
-
Con la confianza de más de 2 millones de profesionales, incluidas las firmas más importantes del mundo.
Accede a todo el contenido con una prueba gratuita de 7 días
Transforma tu investigación jurídica con vLex
-
Accede a resúmenes de sentencias generados por IA, que destacan al instante los aspectos jurídicos clave.
-
Realiza búsquedas avanzadas con opciones precisas de filtrado y ordenamiento.
-
Consulta contenido jurídico completo de más de 100 jurisdicciones, incluyendo una amplia colección de libros y revistas a texto completo.
-
Disfruta de funcionalidades exclusivas como comparador de versiones de una ley, notas de vigencia, análisis de citas, y mucho más.
-
Con la confianza de más de 2 millones de profesionales, incluidas las firmas más importantes del mundo.
Accede a todo el contenido con una prueba gratuita de 7 días
Transforma tu investigación jurídica con vLex
-
Accede a resúmenes de sentencias generados por IA, que destacan al instante los aspectos jurídicos clave.
-
Realiza búsquedas avanzadas con opciones precisas de filtrado y ordenamiento.
-
Consulta contenido jurídico completo de más de 100 jurisdicciones, incluyendo una amplia colección de libros y revistas a texto completo.
-
Disfruta de funcionalidades exclusivas como comparador de versiones de una ley, notas de vigencia, análisis de citas, y mucho más.
-
Con la confianza de más de 2 millones de profesionales, incluidas las firmas más importantes del mundo.