Controvérsia entre o STF e a corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos acerca da lei de anistia

Abstract

The Brazilian Amnesty Law of 1979 was analyzed by the Brazilian Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which created, in Brazil, a decision-making conflict between a constitutional court and an international court. The STF considered the interpretation of the amnesty law to be constitutional in the sense that it forgave not only political crimes committed by opponents of the civil-military dictatorship, but also criminal offenses committed by public agents in charge of repression. On the other hand, the Inter-American Court, in the judgment of the case Gomes Lund, chooses the nullity of the provisions of the Brazilian Amnesty Law that prevents investigation and punishment of serious violations of human rights. Faced with this apparent conflict between decisions by a national top court and an international court, the present study aims to find out which of these decisions prevails and which criteria should be used to solve this type of decisional antinomy. For that, the methodology used was the descriptive bibliographic and jurisprudential research, being used the inductive and deductive methods to reach the conclusions.