ADPF 153

{{Short description|Landmark case of the Supreme Court of Brazil}}

{{Infobox court case

|name = ADPF 153

|court = Supreme Federal Court

|image = Supreme Federal Court of Brazil.jpg

|full name = ADPF 153 (Federal Council of the Order of Attorneys of Brazil v. President of the Republic)

|date decided = {{start date|2010|04|29|df=y}}

|citations = [https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=2644116 ADPF 153]

|judges = President

Cezar Peluso

Justices

{{hlist|Celso de Mello|Marco Aurélio|Ellen Gracie|Gilmar Mendes|Ayres Britto|Eros Grau|Ricardo Lewandowski|Cármen Lúcia|Dias Toffoli}}

|number of judges =

|decision by = Grau

|concurring = Peluzo, Mello, Aurélio, Mendes, Lúcia and Gracie

|dissenting = Britto and Lewandowski

|keywords = {{hlist|Amnesty|Military dictatorship in Brazil}}

}}

ADPF 153 was a constitutional review case ruled by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, which the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB) requested the acknowledgment of the inconstitutionality of the Amnesty Law. Ruled in April 2010, the Supreme Court considered the case unfounded in a voting of 7 to 2.{{cite web|url=https://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=125515|title=STF é contra revisão da Lei da Anistia por sete votos a dois|website=Supremo Tribunal Federal|language=pt-br|date=29 April 2010|accessdate=14 September 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100504014540/https://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=125515|archive-date=4 May 2010}}{{cite journal|url=https://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/bitstream/handle/id/496575/000952677.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y|title=Lei da Anistia - Comentários à sentença do Supremo Tribunal Federal no caso da ADPF 153|website=Senado Federal|language=pt-br|first1=Jorge|last1=Barrientos-Parra|first2=Jorge Luís|last2=Mialhe|publisher=Revista de Informação Legislativa|year=2012|issue=194|location=Brasília|accessdate=14 September 2023}}

History

File:Acórdão na Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental 153-DF.pdf

In the collapse of the military dictatorship in Brazil, the government passed an amnesty in August 1979 which exempted from any penalties and eventual sanction all the political and related crimes occurred in Brazil from September 1961 to 15 August 1979.{{cite journal|url=https://www.scielo.br/j/seq/a/kGQBVYNRCDRsk4jgWSkLxXv/?lang=pt|title=Lei de anistia e justiça de transição: a releitura da ADPF 153 sob o viés argumentativo e principiológico|website=Scielo|language=pt-br|first1=Claudia Rosane|last1=Roesler|first2=Laura Carneiro|last2=de Mello Senra|year=2012|location=Florianópolis|publisher=Revista Sequência|accessdate=14 September 2023|issn=2177-7055|doi=10.5007/2177-7055.2012v33n63p131}} "Related crimes", according to the single paragraph of the first article of the law, were "crimes of any nature related with political crimes or committed with political motivation".{{cite web|url=http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L6683.htm|title=Lei n° 6.683, de 28 de agosto de 1979|website=Palácio do Planalto|language=pt-br|date=28 August 1979|accessdate=14 September 2023}} The Order then requested a clarification of this excerpt, averting the amnesty of common crimes committed by public agents, such as murder, enforced disappearance and torture of their opponents.{{cite web|url=https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/71946/oab-contesta-no-stf-lei-da-anistia-para-crimes-cometidos-em-nome-do-estado|title=OAB contesta no STF Lei da Anistia para crimes cometidos em nome do Estado|website=Migalhas|language=pt-br|date=22 October 2008|accessdate=14 September 2023}}

Then Prosecutor General of the Republic, Roberto Gurgel, manifested against the request.{{cite web|url=https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/101263/pgr-se-manifesta-pela-improcedencia-da-adpf-sobre-a-lei-da-anistia|title=PGR se manifesta pela improcedência da ADPF sobre a Lei da Anistia|website=Migalhas|language=pt-br|date=1 February 2010|accessdate=14 September 2023}} In a two-day trial in April 2010, six justices concurred with justice Eros Grau to reject the appeal. According to him, the Supreme Court couldn't review the "historical agreement that permeated the fight for a broad, general and unrestricted amnesty".{{cite web|url=https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/04/stf-rejeita-acao-da-oab-e-decide-que-lei-da-anistia-vale-para-todos.html|title=STF rejeita ação da OAB e decide que Lei da Anistia vale para todos|website=G1|language=pt-br|first=Robson|last=Bonin|date=29 April 2010|accessdate=14 September 2023}}

Later on, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled, in the "Gomes Lund vs. Brazil" case, that the amnesty wasn't in compliance with the international obligations of the Brazilian State ratified with the American Convention on Human Rights.{{cite journal|url=https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r37379.pdf|title=A responsabilidade internacional do brasil em face do controle de convencionalidade em sede de direitos humanos: conflito de interpretação entre a jurisdição da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e o Supremo Tribunal Federal quanto a Lei de anistia|website=Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos|language=pt-br|first1=Carla Ribeiro|last1=Volpini Silva|first2=Bruno|last2=Wanderley Junior|date=5 December 2015|accessdate=14 September 2023|publisher=Revista de Direito Internacional|doi=10.5102/rdi.v12i2.3699}} Due to this, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) filed another appeal (ADPF 320), aiming to reppeal the amnesty.{{cite web|url=https://psol50.org.br/acao-do-psol-que-questiona-a-lei-da-anistia-espera-julgamento-no-stf-ha-5-anos/|title=Ação do PSOL que questiona a Lei da Anistia espera julgamento no STF há 5 anos|website=Partido Socialismo e Liberdade|language=pt-br|date=31 July 2019|accessdate=14 September 2023}}