STF determines general repercussion in the discussion about the scope of the amnesty law

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) formed a majority on Tuesday (11) to recognize the general repercussion in the trial on the application of the amnesty law to crimes of the military dictatorship (1964-1985) that still have effects, such as the concealment of corpse .

The decision means that the Court’s understanding of the subject will serve as a reference for similar processes in lower instances.

The case, reported by Minister Flávio Dino, reopens the debate on the possibility of punishment for crimes considered “permanent”, which began during the military regime, but whose consequences extend to this day.

An example is the disappearance of engineer Rubens Paiva, the theme of the movie “I’m Still Here”, which reports the disappearance of the former parliamentarian under Doi-Codi’s custody.

The trial involves an appeal about crimes committed at the Araguaia Guerrilla. Among them, a homicide attributed to the military Lício Augusto Ribeiro Maciel and the concealment of corpse by Sebastião Curió, also a military. Curió died in 2022, making it impossible to punish, but the action seeks to hold Maciel responsible.

The complaint of the Federal Prosecutor was rejected in the first instance based on the Amnesty Law, and the decision was upheld by the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region. The Supreme Court will now analyze whether this legislation can be applied to crimes that extend over time, such as the concealment of the corpse.

Dino argues that amnesty extinguishes the punishment of acts committed until it is, but that continued crimes, such as omission on the whereabouts of missing, can be framed as infractions still in progress.

“The maintenance of the omission of the place where the corpse is located, in addition to preventing family members from exercising their right to mourning, configures the crime,” wrote the minister.

The rapporteur made it clear that the proposal is not to review the Supreme’s decision on the amnesty law, but to discuss the scope of legislation to a specific situation.

There is no date set for the judgment of the merits yet. The decision can redefine the scope of the amnesty law and open precedents for further investigations into state agents during the dictatorship.