Brazil's Amnesty Commission: Interview with Paulo Abrão

During the conference we asked National Justice Secretary and President of the Amnesty Commission Paulo Abrão to discuss his work with the commission. 

Question: To begin, please give us some background to the work of the Amnesty Commission. How many submissions has it received and what has it accomplished since it was established by President Cardozo in 2001 to compensate victims who bore economic losses for political reasons between the years 1946 and 1988?

Paulo Abrão: The Amnesty Commission is tasked with promoting reparation and recognition—these are its two fundamental tasks—for all those who have been affected by “acts of exception” during the authoritarian regime. Acts of exception are all acts that have distorted the rule of law sphere in the exercise of public liberties and fundamental rights. Therefore, the commission addresses violations of human rights such as torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and banishment.

With regard to its task of promoting victim recognition, the commission works with the concept of declaring political amnesties. The process assumes recognition of the Brazilian population’s right to resist against arbitrary action and, furthermore, the state’s recognition it has failed in its duty to protect fundamental rights. Therefore, over time, the declarations have become somewhat like a public apology to citizens and to society.

Since 2001, 70,000 people have asked for amnesties and we have given about 32,000, half of which included economic reparations, and half of which were symbolic in the form of an official apology.

Regarding reparations, the commission promotes reparation mechanisms typical of victim rehabilitation. It may be the main contribution of the Amnesty Commission—from a quantitative perspective—because of its capacity to bring together a significant number of reports of atrocities that historically have never been compiled before. This allows for a certain plurality as to the forms of reparation given to these victims, which goes way beyond mere economic reparation.

Question: You are also an advisor to the Reference Center for Revealed Memories of the Public Archive and coordinator of the implementation of the Political Memorial project. Can you tell us about the Political Amnesty Memorial project? How does memorialization contribute to accountability in the Brazilian context?

A. The Memories Revealed Project is a reference center that facilitates the identification of documents that are physically located at sites spread throughout the country. It is a tool for researching documents, according to certain themes.

The Amnesty Memorial—which is still being built—functions according to three basic elements. First, it is a place of memory—a representation of the victims’ narrative as a physical concept. Second, the memorial will set a memory policy, as it will pay homage to the victims and give recognition by the state by maintaining a focus on these severe violations, funded and maintained by the Brazilian public authority. And as a third characteristic, the memorial will be a place of consciousness, as it will become a locus for training and education in human rights, especially for future generations. Therefore, both Memories Revealed and the Amnesty Memorial are complementary policies, maintained by the government, along with other local memory initiatives that Brazil is implementing.

Question: Public hearings recently began for Bill 7376/10, which proposes the establishment of a National Truth Commission to investigate the human rights violations that took place between 1946 and 1988. How will a truth commission complement or further the work of the Amnesty Commission?

A. From my point of view, both the Amnesty Commission and the Special Commission for the Dead and Disappeared are truth and reparation committees. What is new and exclusive to the new truth commission being proposed is its specific tasks. The first one, which was not the object of the two previous commissions, is identifying the structure of repression that was established during the authoritarian regime. Specifically, the design of its chain of command and its corresponding authors.

The second is that, according to the bill, this truth commission may identify and name the human rights violators. And the third contribution is that the Brazilian state assumes the obligation to also draft an official narrative of democracy with regard to this authoritarian past, based on the final report of the proposed commission.

Question: Do you think the bill, as it is, will allow the truth commission to fulfill these roles?

A. I believe that a provision that would be essential for improving the current bill would be a clause granting immunity to the members of the commission for eventual judicial decisions. I think that would provide strength to the members of the commission in their difficult, but important tasks. I am one of those who believes that men and women are the ones who make the institutions, and in some ways, the success of the commission depends less on the ideal structuring and much more on the engagement and commitment of the commissioners chosen to sit on it.

Question: There is currently a public debate of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decision that says Brazil’s amnesty law is in contradiction with international law. What is your opinion about this?

A. My opinion is that the Brazilian state has the duty to comply with the decision fully, in all its aspects. The judiciary should now align the content and the foundation of the decision of the Inter-American Court with the content and foundation of the national Supreme Court. I personally do not believe there necessarily is a contraction between these two decisions. That is, a series of political crimes may be pardoned at the national level, whereas the category of crimes against humanity may be investigated.

Question: What do you think are the priorities for the future?

A. Brazil will have particular challenges to face after the approval of the truth commission bill. First, it will have to transform the commission process into a great opportunity for public debate so as to shape a culture that may reject all forms of authoritarianism and all forms human rights violations.

Second, certain institutional reforms should still be implemented, such as security sector and prison reform, which, as I see it, is currently the main locus of human rights violations. In the transition agenda, there is a need to complete a reparation process and a need to diversify policies on public memory, which are still incipient. From the point of view of truth-seeking, it is up to Brazil to approve a law of access to public information and to expand, in the Brazilian legal consciousness, an unrestricted alignment to the Inter-American human rights system.