At the moment, Brazil is one of the most backward among Latin American when it comes to bringing to light crimes perpetrated during authoritarian regimes. This statement was made yesterday by Beatriz Stella de Azevedo Affonso, representing the Center for Justice and International Law ( CEJIL ), during the 3rd Manuel Conceição Latin American Conference on Amnesty and Human Rights, sponsored by the Chamber’s Committee on Human Rights and Minorities.

In the conference, Beatriz Affonso criticized the Brazilian Government’s attitude abroad ‘of denying the wounds’ left by repressive actions during the military regime. “The approach is always to try to convince International Justice authorities that all was properly settled here, but this is not true”, she said.

She pointed out that the debate about access to the data of the Araguaia Guerrilla movement was one of the longest delayed. ‘Authoritarian thoughts still remain in the country. By comparison, Paraguay recently allowed full access to their files. We are further and further behind”, she added.

Committee for the Truth
The CEJIL representative was taking in part in the debate concerning the creation of a ‘Memory and Truth Committee’ in the country. In recent years several Latin American and African countries have created committees with the titles ‘truth’, ‘memory’ or ‘reconciliation’ aimed at seeking out wrong procedures carried out by governments or rebel guerrillas and to reveal them to the country or the international community. One of their main examples was the Truth and Reconciliation Committee set up by the former South African president Nelson Mandela immediately after apartheid.

The president of the Ministry of Justice’s Amnesty Committee on of the, Paulo Abrão, reinforced how important it is to set up such committees. “When the location of dead bodies and missing people has not yet been completed/carried out and there are still signs of the authoritarianism of the military regime’s repression, we cannot underestimate the task of setting up such a committee for the truth”, he said.

Among the issues he pointed out as essential for the committee’s success are well-defined mandate’s periods and proper support for the work. According to Abrahão, adequate dialogue channels must be defined between such a committee and the organs and institutions already working on the issue.

Experience in other countries
Also at the Conference, the Regional Attorney of the Republic for the state of São Paulo, Marlon Wichert, explained that international experiences can be used as example for what it is intended to set up in Brazil. “The victims of a dictatorship have the inalienable right to know what happened, to whom, when, why and who caused the damage. Brazilian Law has a wrong idea that the victim doesn’t have the right to the truth. The issue is a matter for the State and the victim is merely the object of the damage”, he said.

Wichert stated that the ‘Committee for the Truth’ has to be created by the Brazilian State but has to be run by citizens in order to avoid conflicts of interest. He feels that supporting the committee by a Bill is very useful but a Presidential Decree would be enough to settle the matter.

The Attorney added that setting up a committee is not the only way to find out what really happened. He quoted as example a Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (CPI) created during the 1990’s in the state of São Paulo on the opening of the Perus Mass Grave.

The president of the Committee on Human Rights and Minorities, Deputy Luiz Couto (PT-PB), also supported recalling facts from the military regime. “We can’t abandon our memories”, he said.

To be continued:
Argentina, Chile and Peru already had a “Committee for the Truth”

Reporting – Juliano Pires
Edition – Pierre Triboli
Translation – Jose Schneider