The majority of agents involved in human rights violations during the Brazilian military dictatorship die before their trial or even before the MPF (Federal Prosecutor’s Office) is indicted. This is highlighted by a study carried out by the Human Rights Clinic of Unifesp (Federal University of the State of São Paulo).
According to the investigation, at least 96 of the 139 people involved died before being convicted or denounced for the violations in which they participated. This figure is equivalent to 69% and was calculated under the coordination of Professor Carla Osmo, from Unifesp. The count does not include suspects who are not named in the complaints.
The project involved students Isabelle Macedo Gaiatto, Isadora Coelho Lemos e Carvalho and Sophia Bianchim de Camargo and was requested by Conectas Human Rights. The results emerge in a context of international recognition of the country’s inability to investigate and punish events that occurred under military rule (1964-1985).
In December, a decision by the IDH Court (Inter-American Court of Human Rights) was made public, condemning Brazil for the third time for human rights violations during the dictatorship. In 2010, the country was condemned for facts that occurred without investigation during the Araguaia guerrilla war, between the 1960s and 1970s. Subsequently, in 2018, the Court condemned Brazil for the murder of journalist Vladimir Herzog in 1975.
The 2025 case concerned the torture and murder of Eduardo Leite, known as Bacuri, as well as the torture suffered by his then-partner Denise Crispim, who was pregnant at the time of the events. The couple’s daughter, Eduarda, and Denise’s partner after Bacuri’s death, Leonardo Ditta, also appear in the action.
The MPF had already closed two criminal investigations into this matter. The first was buried in 2013, under the pretext that the crimes mentioned were time-barred. In the second case, which ended in 2024, the justification was the death of the possible perpetrators, their age or the inability to contact them.
“The passage of time is directly proportional to the prescription and, in some cases, the impossibility of obtaining evidence and/or testimony, which makes difficult and even renders null or ineffective the practice of evidentiary measures aimed at clarifying the facts submitted to the investigation, identifying possible perpetrators and participants and determining possible criminal responsibilities,” the decision states.
Created in 1979, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights constitutes the human rights protection system of the OAS (Organization of American States). The judicial body comes from the Pact of San José in Costa Rica, the city where the court is located.
“The first decision of the Inter-American Court on the military dictatorship concerned forced disappearances, but the jurisprudence on the impossibility of amnesty in cases of serious violations is not limited to cases of forced disappearance. Therefore, in cases of serious violations and crimes against humanity, there cannot be amnesty or statute of limitations that excludes criminal liability,” affirms the professor.
According to the investigation coordinated by Osmo, the MPF filed 53 complaints between 2012 and 2022. Of these, 32 were rejected on the basis of the amnesty law. Furthermore, of the admitted complaints, none resulted in a final conviction of the accused, and both convictions at first instance were subsequently overturned.
The investigation also shows that there are at least 10 appeals awaiting judgment at the STF, and 9 of them focus on four general repercussions. One of them reports to the minister’s rapporteur Flávio Dino (theme 1.369) and talks about the impossibility of applying the amnesty law to permanent crimes, such as hiding bodies.
The three other general repercussions (themes 1374, 1375 and 1376) are reported by Alexandre de Moraes and contain identical assertions. The debate in these cases focuses on the possibility of amnesty for crimes classified as serious human rights violations.
Renan Quinalha, also a law professor at Unifesp, says there is a certain difficulty in understanding the “scale and scope” of the dictatorship’s impacts. He welcomes, for example, that the Inter-American Court specifically recognized the violations suffered by Denise as a case of violence against women.
However, he criticizes the way in which the Supreme Court conducts the debate on the repression of crimes committed under the military regime. “This same Supreme Court, which adopts a very ruthless position with regard to the acts of January 8, must value democratic culture and respect for institutions and human rights,” Quinalha asserts.
About The Author
