By CARLOS ENRIQUE RUIZ FERREIRA*

Flávio Dino's thesis is that the crime of concealing a corpse continues to occur over time, beyond its inaugural act. It is a permanent crime.

Caring for the dead

For the ancient Greeks, each dead person was a God, a sacred being, as seen in Aeschylus and Euripides. Jean Pierre Vernant reminds us that death, after all, is “above the human condition” and requires a series of ceremonies to be performed (Myth and Religion in Ancient Greece). The Romans addressed the deceased as gods manes, “they are men who have left life: consider them as divine beings” (Cicero, By bus).

In the Code of Manu, it is stated that funeral rites are the oldest in humanity and fulfill the function of resting the souls of the dead, as well as bringing peace and well-being to the family.

In Candomblé, the natural cycle of death must be honored with rites that ensure balance between the physical and spiritual worlds. Among them, the passage of the soul of the deceased from the dead to the dead is taken care of through various religious procedures. Aiye protocols for Orun. These rites are called Àsèsè, “return to the origins” (José Beniste, Órun-Àiye – The Meeting of Two Worlds).

Em Antigone, by Sophocles, a work considered by many to be one of the bastions of Human Rights, the drama focuses largely on the decree of the King of Thebes, Creon (who embodies positive law). He orders that Polynices, considered a traitor, should have his body unburied, left at the mercy of birds of prey. Antigone, his relative, disrespects the Law, the State, and takes care to honor her brother's body, highlighting the eternal dilemma between justice and law, or between natural law (and human rights) and positive law.

Fustel de Coulanges considers that the “religion of the dead seems to be the oldest that existed” among the Indo-European peoples. That even before “worshipping Indra or Zeus, man worshipped the dead, was afraid of them, and prayed to them”. And he concludes: “It seems that religious sentiment had its origin there”. (The Ancient City)

In the many religions and cultures of the world, therefore, caring for the dead, caring for the body of the person who has passed away, constitutes one of the most important dimensions of human life, and can therefore be considered an inalienable right.

Flávio Dino's decision on the concealment of corpses

This preamble highlights the magnitude of the recent decision by judge Flávio Dino on the concealment of corpses, an abominable practice and “ongoing crimes” committed repeatedly by the Brazilian military during the long night of the dictatorship. The decision by the Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) refers to an appeal by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (whose authors deserve to be commended) to the Supreme Court, in view of the rejection of the argument by the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region. This court, the TRF1, understands that the crime of concealment of corpses is protected by the Amnesty Law.

The “native media”, in Mino Carta’s jargon, is publishing the statement that the decision by judge Flávio Dino seeks to review the Amnesty Law. It is more than obvious that the infamous Law should be reviewed, in light of the most basic principles of internationally enshrined human rights and justice, but this particular discussion is not about that.

The Amnesty Law granted pardons for political crimes within a specific time period: between September 2, 1961 and August 15, 1979. Thus, Flávio Dino's thesis is that the crime of concealing a corpse continues to occur in time, beyond its inaugural act. It is a permanent crime, and even though it was initially committed during the Amnesty period, it continues beyond it, extending to the present day. The Amnesty Law, therefore, cannot be applied.

The decision is extensively supported by international and national legal systems, distinguished jurists and case law. Regarding the latter, I would like to highlight one: “Removing a body from the place where it should remain and taking it to another where it will not normally be recognized constitutes, in theory, the crime of concealing a body. The conduct was intended to prevent the homicide from being discovered and, in a clear manner, to destroy evidence of the crime. This is an ongoing crime that continues until the moment the body is discovered” (HC 76678-8 RJ, rapporteur Justice Maurício Corrêa. 2nd Panel, DJU 8-9-2000, p. 5).

Justice Dino thus argues: “In a permanent crime, the action extends over time. The application of the Amnesty Law extinguishes the punishability of all acts committed up until its entry into force. However, since the action extends over time, there are acts subsequent to the Amnesty Law.” (Extraordinary Appeal with Appeal 1.501.674 Pará, STF)

Crystal clear as the waters of a spring: the practice of hiding corpses carried out by military thugs during the dictatorship is a crime that continues to occur, continues to be valid, perpetuating indescribable pain in the victim's family and friends.

What will become justice, if the other members of the STF agree with Dino's thesis, will therefore be a funeral rite for one of the many impunities that the country still allows to exist in our physical, emotional and imaginary territory.

The Permanent Pain – “I’m Still Here”

What does the idea “I’m still here” in the film of the same title refer to? Multiplicity is imposed.

Talking to Malu Ferreira, her interpretation was that “I’m still here” would allude to her mother, Eunice, and her family presence, in taking care of her children, in her persistence in her work, for example. When I left the cinema I had thought of two propositions. The first, influenced by Nego Bispo, was that “I’m still here” would tell us that Rubens Paiva is still among us.

It is in the film, with the family members, based on the honor of memories. Rubens Paiva became an ancestor. The second interpretation I had was that what is still here is the Dictatorship. In the military that presided over the country recently, in the attempted coup d'état of January 8, in the green and yellow dagger plan (with premeditated murders) that became known in the last few days and, who knows, even worse, in the culture of violence, pro-Bolsonaro, so present and rooted in the hearts and minds of a good part of Brazilians.

But with all this debate, urged by the MPF and Minister Flávio Dino, we can also conclude that “I am still here” refers to the body of Rubens Paiva and of so many other people who were barbarically killed and whose bodies remain missing. “I am still here” are words that echo from the bodies that have not been found.

Carlos Enrique Ruiz Ferreira is a professor of political science at the State University of Paraíba.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE