Banca de QUALIFICAÇÃO: NATHAN DA SILVA NETO

Uma banca de QUALIFICAÇÃO de DOUTORADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : NATHAN DA SILVA NETO
DATE: 08/02/2024
TIME: 10:00
LOCAL: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ODdhMDlhYjItYTA3Yy00ZWE1LWFhZmMtYTU4MTMzYjMyM
TITLE:

 “Broad, general and unrestricted” amnesty: sayings and prohibitions

 

KEY WORDS:

Transitional Justice. Broad, general and unrestricted amnesty. Genealogy. Justice System.

PAGES: 30
BIG AREA: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
AREA: Direito
SUMMARY:

In the context of the military dictatorship of 1964, the process of political opening initiated by the Geisel government gave rise to the emergence of the national campaign for amnesty, which brought together several social movements that opposed resistance to the regime and demanded a “broad, general and unrestricted amnesty, that is , capable of covering all acts of expression of opposition to the dictatorial regime and reaching all victims of exceptional acts, without discrimination or restrictions, in addition to rejecting any type of amnesty that would benefit the regime's torturers. In reaction to the speech coming from social movements, speeches emerged that stated a “broad, general and unrestricted” amnesty in a sense diametrically opposed to that proclaimed by social movements. In this sense, the discourse surrounding “broad, general and unrestricted amnesty” suffered a process of subjection (capture and subversion), by forces linked to the regime, which meant that the aforementioned expression was translated for the benefit of the regime’s agents, i.e. is translated as “bilateral amnesty”. The dispute over the expression “broad, general and unrestricted amnesty” went through the entire process of political opening and ended, more than twenty years after the promulgation of the 1988 Federal Constitution, in the Federal Supreme Court (STF), on the occasion of the trial of the Claim of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precept 153 (ADPF 153), judged in 2010. As had occurred in the context of disputes between social movements and the dictatorial regime, the expression “broad, general and unrestricted amnesty” once again became the subject of dispute in the aforementioned judgment. At the time, important actors in the justice system (PRG, AGU and the ministers of the Supreme Court) used the expression in its distorted sense to, in the end, recognize, based on the expression, the thesis of “reciprocal amnesty”. This process of subjecting the discourse coming from social movements, which translated the expression “broad, general and unrestricted amnesty” into “bilateral amnesty”, in the context of the STF, is due, among other reasons, to the preservation of the political powers of the military over the process of democratic transition, still ongoing in Brazil. The paradigm of “controlled transition” has not yet been overcome, so that the military still retains great power of influence and veto in the context of implementing the axes of Transitional Justice. In the game of forces that revolves around issues pertaining to Transitional Justice, institutions have not yet accumulated sufficient strength to overcome the controlled transition model erected under the paradigm of the National Security Doctrine. This power of influence and veto also had an impact on the judgment of ADPF 153, the bridge to enshrine the thesis of reciprocal amnesty.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Presidente - 1728968 - ENEA DE STUTZ E ALMEIDA
Externo ao Programa - 1600694 - RODRIGO LENTZ - nullInterna - 1645163 - SIMONE RODRIGUES PINTO