FROM ARAGUAIA TO THE ILLUSORY TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE GOMES LUND CASE

Abstract

Transitional justice, in fact, never existed in Brazil. The antagonism between the decision of the Federal Supreme Court in the Arguicão de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental - ADPF nº 153 and the sentence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court IDH) in the Case of Gomes and Lund reflects the framework of institutional fissure existing in the post-regime military (1964-1985) that currently influences institutions. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office - MPF filed several criminal actions against the military for human rights violations during the military dictatorship. The objective of this study is to analyze what happened to these processes based on the assumption that the Brazilian Judiciary, in general, tends to disrespect what was deliberated in the international instance. The method used in this study was a qualitative approach and with bibliographical, documental with a case study research. The conclusion with the analysis of the actions filed in relation to the facts that occurred in the Araguaia Guerrilha is that most judges prefer to adopt the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court without further questioning. Thus, there is a tendency for the Brazilian Judiciary to place the military as victims, coining the dictatorship of counterrevolution, disregarding the advances of Contemporary International Law, which reveals the need for institutional reforms.