Conflict and Indifference between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and National Tribunals, and the Case of Brazilian Amnesty Law
Une conf茅rence avec Luiz Magno Pinto Bastos Jr., professeur agr茅g茅 脿 l'Universidade do Vale do Itaja铆 du Br茅sil. Il parlera des points de vue divergents entre la Cour supr锚me du Br茅sil et la Cour interam茅ricaine des droits de l鈥檋omme sur de nombreux points, notamment la loi sur l'amnistie du Br茅sil. Organis茅 par le Centre sur les droits de la personne et le pluralisme juridique. Bienvenue 脿 tous et toutes!
搁茅蝉耻尘茅
[En anglais seulement] On April 28, 2010, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) upheld the constitutionality of the Brazilian Amnesty Law enacted at the end of the military regime and reinforced by the Constitutional Amendment convening the Constituent National Assembly.
Six months later, on November 24, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) declared that the Brazilian Amnesty Law is incompatible with the American Convention, lacks legal effects and cannot be used as an obstacle to investigating and prosecuting those responsible for grave violations of human rights.
This conflict not only reflects聽the Brazilian STF's lack of compliance with previous IACHR聽jurisprudence concerning amnesty, but it reveals an absence of dialogue from both sides.
In this paper, I analyze some aspects of the reasoning developed in both decisions as well as the institutional characteristics that have contributed to this lack of communication. 聽In the end, I argue that the strength (and the future) of the Inter-American system depends on the development of strategies of engagement and cooperation between the jurisdiction at both the international and the domestic聽levels.
Le conf茅rencier
[En anglais seulement] Luiz Magno Pinto Bastos Jr. is an Associate Professor at Universidade do Vale do Itaja铆, in Brazil (since 2000), teaching Constitutional Law, General Theory of State, Human Rights Law, and Constitutional Procedural Law, at Law and International Relations faculties (undergraduate studies). He also is a partner of the Menezes Niebuhr Law Firm, practicing in Electoral, Constitutional and Administrative Law.
