Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand

Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights about the Brazilian transitional justice: an analysis of arguments

Grant number: 13/11607-3
Support type:Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
Effective date (Start): August 01, 2013
Effective date (End): July 31, 2014
Field of knowledge:Applied Social Sciences - Law - Public Law
Principal Investigator:Marta Rodriguez de Assis Machado
Grantee:Ana Carolina Araujo Bracarense Costa
Home Institution: Escola de Direito de São Paulo (DIREITO GV). Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV). São Paulo , SP, Brazil

Abstract

The Scientific Initiation Research aims to analyze the arguments which have sustained: (i) the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) Decision on the Claim of Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 153 and (ii) the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Decision on the case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, which, in relation to the validity of the Brazilian Amnesty Law, have reached completely different conclusions. The intention of the research is to produce a descriptive analytical study of each decision, aiming to understand the legal rationality used by each court, while deciding. Not only would the analysis help us to verify this legal rationality, trying to evaluate the internal consistency of the decisions, but it also would give us hints to observe whether there is a dialogue between the courts or between the judges. It is intended here to produce a consistent material which could be used to resolve this inquietude: What was the argumentative substantiation used by courts, which are subjected to the same human right principles, that permitted them to decide in opposite ways in relation to the state agents punishment for crimes against the humans rights committed during the dictatorship in Brazil?