Disputas pela transição: uma análise biopolítica do debate jurídico por memória e verdade a partir da ADPF 153/DF e do caso Gomes Lund e outros vs. Brasil

• Ano de defesa: 2025
• Autor(a) principal: Rocha, Arllan Douglas Santos
• Orientador(a): Ávila, Flávia de
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Pós-Graduação em Direito
• Palavras-chave em Português: Ditadura; Autoritarismo; Anistia; Controle de convencionalidade; Justiça de transição
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Dictatorship; Authoritarianism; Amnesty; Conventionality control; Transitional justice
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://ri.ufs.br/jspui/handle/riufs/21405

This research analyzed how the judgments in the Fundamental Principle Non compliance Challenge (ADPF) 153/DF by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and in the Gomes Lund and Others vs. Brazil case by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) influence the legal-argumentative disputes over the right to memory and truth after the dictatorship within the framework of Transitional Justice. For this purpose, the concepts of memory and truth as articulated by Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin were used, as well as the concepts of bando, force-of-law, and state of exception in Giorgio Agamben. An inductive method was employed through an approach based on documentary analysis, which was linked to the interpretative frameworks derived from the concepts provided by the aforementioned authors. Consequently, the concept of Transitional Justice was examined-from the genealogy proposed by Ruti G. Teitel to the construction of the concept as understood from a critical perspective. Moreover, the concepts of memory and truth in Walter Benjamin and Hannah Arendt, as well as those of bando, force-of-law, way of life, and state of exception in Agamben, were also scrutinized. The judgment in ADPF 153/DF and the sentence of the IACHR in the Gomes Lund and Others vs. Brazil case were analyzed as well, with their implications for the current transition scenario being debated. With ADPF 153/DF, the Supreme Court maintained the validity of Amnesty with the force-of-law that had been conferred upon it, in a move aimed at avoiding the discussion of the Brazilian amnesty process. Thus, the victims were abandoned in their quest for the right to memory and truth before the Brazilian judiciary. Under the guise of a consolidative vision, the STF's decision supported the unfinished form of Transitional Justice officially adopted by Brazil, keeping the victims in the condition of a bando. However, the reopening of debates following the IACHR's decision and the resumption of discussions have bolstered the struggle of the victims and their families, enabling resistance to the state of exception that is still imposed upon them.