- Source: ADPF 153
ADPF 153 was a constitutional review case ruled by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, which the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB) requested the acknowledgment of the inconstitutionality of the Amnesty Law. Ruled in April 2010, the Supreme Court considered the case unfounded in a voting of 7 to 2.
History
In the collapse of the military dictatorship in Brazil, the government passed an amnesty in August 1979 which exempted from any penalties and eventual sanction all the political and related crimes occurred in Brazil from September 1961 to 15 August 1979. "Related crimes", according to the single paragraph of the first article of the law, were "crimes of any nature related with political crimes or committed with political motivation". The Order then requested a clarification of this excerpt, averting the amnesty of common crimes committed by public agents, such as murder, enforced disappearance and torture of their opponents.
Then Prosecutor General of the Republic, Roberto Gurgel, manifested against the request. In a two-day trial in April 2010, six justices concurred with justice Eros Grau to reject the appeal. According to him, the Supreme Court couldn't review the "historical agreement that permeated the fight for a broad, general and unrestricted amnesty".
Later on, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled, in the "Gomes Lund vs. Brazil" case, that the amnesty wasn't in compliance with the international obligations of the Brazilian State ratified with the American Convention on Human Rights. Due to this, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) filed another appeal (ADPF 320), aiming to reppeal the amnesty.
High Court decision
= Judiciary representation
== Public Prosecutor's Office representation
=References
Kata Kunci Pencarian:
- Kemalisme
- ADPF 153
- Cannabis (drug)
- Marcel Bénabou
- Affirmative action
- Entheogenic use of cannabis
- Effects of cannabis
- Kemalism
- Long-term effects of cannabis
- History of medical cannabis
