SÂO PAULO — The legacy of Ainda Estou Aqui (“I’m Still Here) could extend far beyond its Academy Award, a first ever Oscar win for a Brazilian-produced film. The movie has sparked a broad probe by Brazil’s Supreme Court, which will decide whether the Amnesty Law applies to cases of disappearances of victims of Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985).
A study by Agência Pública reveals that out of the 56 criminal cases filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office between 2012 and 2024, 18 would be unlocked if the Court decides to exclude these cases from the Amnesty Law’s protection.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
On Feb. 24, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to analyze whether the Amnesty Law applies to cases of disappearance, though no trial date has been set. The Court reviewed appeals concerning criminal cases related to the disappearances of Rubens Paiva, the subject of the film, and Mário Alves, as well as the murder of Helber José Gomes Goulart, whose body remained missing for 19 years.
Following the report of Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the Court determined that the issue has general repercussions — meaning that its ruling will set a precedent for similar cases currently stalled in the justice system for various reasons.
An internationally acclaimed film, I’m Still Here directed by Walter Salles, tells the story of how Eunice Paiva (played by Fernanda Torres), widow of Rubens Paiva, led her family through grief and became a respected human rights lawyer in Brazil. The movie is based on the book of the same name by Marcelo Rubens Paiva, son of the ousted congressman who was tortured to death in January 1971. His body was never found.
Nation moved
Between 2012 and 2024, the the prosecutors office filed at least 56 criminal cases against former agents of the dictatorship’s repressive apparatus. Prosecutors have argued that the Amnesty Law should not protect perpetrators of human rights violations, given that the dictatorship systematically targeted segments of the population that opposed the regime, whether armed or unarmed.
Supreme Court judge Flávio Dino referenced the film
Crimes committed in this context are considered crimes against humanity and, therefore, are not subject to statutes of limitations, meaning Brazilian authorities have an obligation to prosecute and try those responsible.
The statute of limitations is the time limit established under Article 189 of the Civil Code, which determines the deadline within which a legal action can be filed to secure a right. This applies to various matters, including financial claims and the prosecution of crimes.
In December, while reviewing an appeal in a case involving the military regime’s concealment of a victim’s body, Supreme Court judge Flávio Dino referenced the film when ruling that the issue had general repercussions.
“At this moment, the film I’m Still Here has moved millions of Brazilians and foreigners,” Dino said. “The story of the disappearance of Rubens Paiva, whose body was never found or given a proper burial, highlights the enduring pain of thousands of parents, siblings, children, nephews, and grandchildren who never received justice for their missing relatives.”
– YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Like Rubens Paiva
The Agência Pública investigation found that, in addition to the cases of Rubens Paiva, Mário Alves, and Helber Goulart, 15 other criminal cases could be impacted — amounting to 32% of the cases filed — potentially leading to accountability for the accused. Another 15 cases will remain unresolved, as the suspects have died or their cases have already been closed by the courts.
The legal system does not allow for appeals in favor of the prosecution
Due to delays, the country has lost its chance to prosecute those responsible for 15 victims’ disappearances. In nine cases, the accused have died, and Brazilian law states that legal proceedings end with the defendant’s death. This includes four cases against Sebastião Curió Rodrigues de Moura, who led extermination campaigns against the Araguaia Guerrilla and died in 2022 at age 87. Six other cases were dismissed by the courts. Once a case is finalized, the prosecutors’ office cannot request its reopening.
“If the rulings that blocked these criminal cases are final, there’s little that can be done, as our legal system does not allow for appeals in favor of the prosecution,” explained former Justice Minister and ex-deputy Attorney General Eugênio Aragão.
Price of impunity
High-profile cases such as the Riocentro bombing, the systematic rapes suffered by Inês Etienne Romeu (the sole survivor of the Casa da Morte in Petrópolis, RJ), the murder of journalist Vladimir Herzog, and the torture of Frei Tito, a Dominican friar accused of being part of the Aliança Nacional Libertadora (ANL), will not be affected by the general repercussion ruling. Similarly, the case of Carlos Marighella, who was tortured for a month and later exchanged for the release of Swiss Ambassador Giovanni Bucher before going into exile in France—where he took his own life at age 28—will also remain outside the scope of the ruling.
According to Eugênio Aragão, if the Supreme Court determines that the Amnesty Law does not apply to disappearance cases, the 18 pending cases will immediately proceed. However, the decision could be modulated, limiting the impact to cases involving both disappearance and concealment of a body—allowing only nine cases to move forward.
Another possibility would be to overturn the Amnesty Law in cases of disappearance while also incorporating international court rulings on human rights violations in Brazil. This approach would allow all pending criminal cases where the defendants are still alive and the cases have not been dismissed by the courts to proceed, potentially unblocking 39 cases.
For prosecutor Eugênia Gonzaga, who has advocated since 2007 for the prosecution of dictatorship-era crimes, the renewed attention shines a light on past injustice: “When I see how many cases could still lead to justice depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, it only reinforces how much impunity has prevailed.”
