A (in)efetividade da justiça de transição no Brasil: uma perspectiva sob a luz dos casos Gomes Lund e Vladimir Herzog

Abstract

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the establishment of several Military Dictatorships in Latin America. This process began in 1954, with the military regimes in Guatemala and Paraguay, and only ended in 1990, with the fall of Augusto Pinochet and the end of the Chilean Dictatorship. In Brazil, the military came to power after the deposition of President João Goulart (Jango) on March 31, 1964. On April 1, 1964, a regime began that lasted more than 20 years, and that only on March 15, 1985 came to an end with the inauguration of President José Sarney, the first civilian to hold the highest post in the National Executive in over two decades. With the gates of dictatorial regimes closed, the search for reparations to the victims of the excesses committed by state agents and for the accountability of such agents for the crimes committed by them gained strength. This attempt at legal accountability of those who committed crimes against humanity was named Transitional Justice. This process of an international nature, received this name because it is a set of mechanisms, legal or not, presented after dictatorships, therefore during the transition from military regimes to democratic regimes, which aims to hold agents and States accountable for the excesses committed against human rights. In addition, it also aims to rescue the memory and the truth of the events during the military regimes. This research aims to understand, through different bibliographies, how the process of implementing the Brazilian Transitional Justice has taken place. To assess such effectiveness, the role of the National Truth Commission created in 2011, the cases of Gomes Lund and Vladimir Herzog, cases that led to convictions by the Brazilian State before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), as well as different legal norms, including them the Amnesty Law of 1979 and the Argument of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precept Nº 153 (ADPF 153). Through the examination of these different institutes, it was possible to observe that, in the Brazilian case, the (in)effectiveness of the Transitional Justice stands out much more than its effectiveness.