ABSTRACT1

In April 2010, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, or STF) controversially decided to uphold the country’s amnesty law, which currently prevents prosecutions for violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship. However, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately followed with an opposing view in the Araguaia case, declaring that the amnesty law lacks effect under the American Convention on Human Rights. Brazilian society now faces an unprecedented challenge: can it expect its domestic courts to implement such international obligations? Drawing upon the prospects that a renewed STF may revisit the case in response to the mounting pressures of Araguaia, this article examines the complex legal issues that remain around the enforceability of international justice under Brazil’s constitutional framework. The analysis suggests that different judicial strategies could still be explored in order to shift the STF’s stance towards a more consistent application of international human rights principles.

You do not currently have access to this article.

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.