Repression and International Pressure: Brazil and the Protection of Human Rights

See the featured document of the week here! — Repression and International Pressure: Brazil and the Protection of Rights

Check out the full document in our collection: Memorandum of conversation between William P. Rogers, Charles A. Meyer, Robert W. Dean, Mario Gibson Barboza and Celso Diniz on Brazil's image abroad

Dated 1971, the document reports the existence of a concern within the media and public opinion of the United States of America (USA), with the methods of repression used in Brazil by its police force after the beginning of the civil-military dictatorship regime in 1964. The document mentions that this situation could negatively affect the reputation of Brazil in the USA, especially due to allegations involving the practice of abuse and torture in Brazilian territory. The text also highlights the stance adopted by the Brazilian government of the period when faced with requests for information on this topic presented by both International Red Cross, as by Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). 

Founded in Switzerland in 1863, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is now made up of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. It is not necessary to distinguish each of these and the function performed by each here; for now it is sufficient to understand the role played by the Movement through these organizations.  

In general, according to the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949, as well as their three additional Protocols – two signed in 1977 and the third in 2005, the Red Cross is responsible for the promotion, implementation, defense and development of the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). The Red Cross is not the only entity legally bound by IHL, as other actors are equally obliged to comply with and enforce this set of rules, namely: states parties to the Conventions, international organizations, other non-governmental organizations, and even non-state armed groups. Thus, in addition to being legally bound by IHL customs and principles, Brazil has signed and ratified the seven treaties mentioned above – the four 1949 Conventions were ratified and promulgated by means of Decree No. 42,121 of August 21, 1957, the two 1977 Protocols by means of Decree No. 849, of June 25, 1993, and the 2005 Protocol, through Decree No. 7,196, of June 1, 2010. 

IHL consists of the set of conventional, customary and principled international legal norms that aim to mitigate human suffering before, during and after the outbreak of armed conflicts – whether international or non-international armed conflicts. Broadly speaking, IHL deals with the distinction between civilians and combatants, the definition of individuals in a situation hors de combat (wounded, sick, shipwrecked, and prisoners of war), the identification of military targets, and the prohibition or limitation of the use of certain weapons or methods of combat. Generally speaking, while prisoners of war are people who are part of the armed forces of another state during an international armed conflict (art. 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949), people from the state itself who are detained during a non-international armed conflict are civilians of that state – and, in the event of detention, they cannot be subjected to cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment, be subjected to torture or mutilation, have their right to life denied, among others (arts. 3 and 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949). 

In turn, the Human Rights Commission established within the OAS has another scope of action: the protection of human rights (DH) in the territory of the OAS member states that are part of the HR protection mechanism established within this regional international organization – known as Inter-American System of Human Rights (IAHRS). In this sense, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), headquartered in Washington DC (USA), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICtIDH), headquartered in San José (Costa Rica), are the bodies provided for in Articles 33 to 73 of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights with the purpose of hearing and dealing with matters related to compliance with the commitments provided for in the Convention (Art. 33 of the Convention). While the IACHR is generally competent to respond to requests submitted to it containing allegations of human rights violations in a member state, in order to present recommendations for the latter to adopt the necessary measures to cease violations or to prevent them from occurring (Art. 41 c/c 44 of the Convention), the IACHR is competent to process and judge cases referred to it regarding human rights violations by a member state (Arts. 61 and 63 of the Convention). 

During the period covered by the document, the American Convention was not yet in force, and the IACHR operated on another legal basis – Resolution VIII, adopted at the end of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of OAS Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Santiago (Chile) in 1959. In any case, the Convention entered into force in 1978, with the Brazilian state having signed and ratified this instrument through Decree No. 678 of November 6, 1992, and recognized the jurisdiction of the CtIDH through Decree No. 4,463 of November 8, 2002. 

Among the numerous rights provided for by the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, the following can be listed: the right to life (art. 4 of the Convention), the right to personal integrity (art. 5 of the Convention), the right to judicial guarantees (art. 8 of the Convention), among others. The Convention does not, however, exhaust the list of human rights protected and promoted by the IAHRS – and, in this sense, the 1985 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which came into force in 1987 within the IAHRS, and which was signed and ratified by the Brazilian state through Decree No. 98,386 of December 9, 1989, among other international documents adopted within the IAHRS for the protection of human rights in the Americas, can be mentioned. 

So far, twenty-three lawsuits have been filed against the Brazilian state in the IACHR, with the country having been convicted in thirteen of them, acquitted in one, while the others are awaiting trial. Among the various issues addressed by these measures directed against Brazil, there are cases that occurred during the period of civil-military dictatorship – such as the Gomes Lund and Others case (“Guerrilla of Araguaia”), tried in 2010, and the case Herzog and Others, tried in 2018, involving topics brought up by the document, such as: respect for personal integrity (physical, psychological and moral), prohibition, investigation and punishment of arbitrary detentions, torture, summary execution or disrespect for the right to life. 

There is an overlap between IHL and HR standards – after all, both regimes deal with the preservation of human dignity. However, this overlap does not diminish, weaken or fragment the aforementioned protection, as they are regimes that interact with each other in a complementary manner – even though they are anchored in different normative spheres and implemented by different institutional mechanisms. In this regard, there are numerous judgments from the IACHR – in cases involving El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, among others – which point to this intersection, highlighting the fundamental role played by state and non-state institutions in the national and international promotion and protection of human dignity. 

Prof. Dr. Arthur Capella,

Researcher at NACE CNV-Brazil,

Institute of International Relations at the University of São Paulo