Military justice, intervention and human rights in Brazil

Massacres in
Brazil show the relationship between the expansion of military justice and
impunity.

The debate revolves around the expansion of the jurisdiction of the military
(military justice, not common justice) to prosecute crimes involving civilians –
be they defendants, or victims of human rights violations by members of the
Armed Forces.

But massacres
are not isolated events – far from it. Violence has increased since the federal
intervention in Rio de Janeiro began in February 2018. According to the
Intervention Observatory report, the facts are alarming: from February 16 to
April 15, 1502 shootings were reported, which resulted in 284 deaths and 193
people injured.

In the previous period, from December 16 to February 15, 1299 such
events were reported. Crossfires also produced 12 massacres and 52 casualties.
In the same period in 2017, there were 6 massacres and 27 deaths.

There is a
great risk that impunity will consolidate increasing violence. The Armed Forces
High Command has established the territorial and institutional limits of the
militarization process.

It will not be limited to Rio de Janeiro. As indicated by the Federal Public Security Controller of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Army General Walter Souza Braga Netto: "Rio de Janeiro is a laboratory for Brazil".

On one hand, it will not be limited to Rio de Janeiro.
As indicated by the Federal Public Security Controller of the State of Rio de
Janeiro, Army General Walter Souza Braga Netto: "Rio de Janeiro is a
laboratory for Brazil".

On the other hand, it will require an
institutional shield. Army Commander General Eduardo Villas Bôas does not mince
his words when he says that it is necessary to give the military "a
guarantee to act without the risk of a new Truth Commission".

To this end,
the expansion of the jurisdiction of military justice, although little
discussed, is crucial.

Military Justice: authoritarian origins and corporate
organization

Historically,
the structure of military justice has coexisted with ad hoc military tribunals which, under the Empire and the Old
Republic, were widely used to deal with political contestation. From the very
beginning, military justice bodies were mostly composed of military personnel.

In
the early days, however, the Supreme Military and Justice Council, which was incorporated
into the structure of the Executive Power, performed predominantly administrative
functions.

Jorge Zaverucha
and Hugo Cavalcanti Melo Filho have drawn attention to the fact that, with the expansion
of jurisdictional activities, there was a tendency to reduce the number of
military ministers and to gradually equate them with civilian ministers – this was
finally achieved with the constitutional reform of 1926.

However, the rise of
Getúlio Vargas to power marked an authoritarian turn which was not reversed in the
following democratizing periods, and was in fact reinforced during the military
dictatorship through Institutional Act No. 2, of 1965.

The Federal
Constitution of 1988 left the institutional structure of military justice established
during the dictatorship practically unaltered.

Today, military
justice is comprised of the courts and military judges established by law
(first instance) and the Military High Court (second instance). The
Organization of Military Justice Act establishes that the first instance courts
are to be composed of one civilian and four military judges.

Requirements for
the post of the one civilian judge include legal education and having accessed
a judicial career through open competition; the requirement for the military
judges is simply that they be in active duty.

The same requirements apply for
the second instance, composed of 10 military officers and 5 civilians.

The militarization of justice: the expansion of the jurisdiction
of military justice

The 1988
Constitution succinctly states that military justice "is responsible for
prosecuting military crimes as defined by law". What military crimes are
and what will thus fall under the jurisdiction of military justice is defined
by law.

This original (authoritarian) flaw of military justice was never altered by the democratic order of 1988, either by legislative or judicial means.

Two of these laws are direct legacies of the dictatorship of 1964: the
Military Penal Code and the Code of Military Criminal Procedure.

The former establishes,
for example, that crimes committed by civilians "against military
institutions" are to be considered "military crimes" and thus
fall under the responsibility of military justice (not ordinary justice).

This
original (authoritarian) flaw of military justice was never altered by the
democratic order of 1988, either by legislative or judicial means. There was an
appeal submitted in 2013 to the Supreme Federal Court however questioning the
jurisdiction of military justice to prosecute civilians (ADP 289).

Other legal actions
question the legislative innovations which have expanded the competency of military
justice in recent years even further.

These actions are aimed at provisions such
as that of Complementary Law n.117 of 2004, which expressly establishes that
the use of the Armed Forces in guaranteeing law and order is to be considered military
activity for the purposes of applying the jurisdiction of military justice, and
that of the LC n.136 of 2010 which defines as a "military activity" the
use of the Armed Forces in "subsidiary activities" such as actions
"against cross-border and environmental crimes" and "repressing
crimes that have a national and international impact".

Recently, the Supreme
Federal Court began to consider a direct appeal of unconstitutionality (n.5032)
aimed at removing the jurisdiction of military justice in these cases.

Minister
Marco Aurelio, acting as rapporteur, indicated that the jurisdiction of military
justice and the use of the Armed Forces in guaranteeing law and order and fighting
crime is constitutional. Minister Fachin disagreed.

And the investigation into the
matter was suspended at the request of Minister Luis Roberto Barroso. Until the
question of the unconstitutionality of the legislation that supports it is
definitively settled, the Supreme Court authorizes the expansive use of military
justice.

Over the last
decade, this legislation was extensively applied in Rio de Janeiro when the
National Force was used in "social pacification" missions in the
favelas, resulting in several episodes of violence by members of the Armed
Forces against the local population.

In July 2017,
with the resurgence of violence and of the discourse defending the need to
toughen repression of criminality, the Federal Government issued a decree
authorizing the use of the Armed Forces for public security functions in the
State of Rio de Janeiro – initially, until December 31, 2017, but the period
was later extended to the end of 2018.

Calling on the Armed Forces for security
tasks and even for surveillance duty in prisons has been quite common.

In this context,
Law 13,491 of October 2017 was sanctioned by President Michel Temer and shortly
after came into force. This new law extends once again the concept of military
crime, this time to cover intentional homicide (with intention to kill)
perpetrated by members of the Armed Forces against civilians.

This change
means that the civilian police no longer have any power to conduct investigations
into soldiers who kill in the exercise of their duties or in subsidiary
activities such as in public security or policing tasks. The investigations and
the prosecution of these crimes – which were previously submitted to a jury – are
now left in the hands of the military.

The new law, which violates the
constitutional provision establishing the competence of the jury in such cases,
is now in force. And the appeals questioning its constitutionality are pending
to be heard by the Federal Supreme Court (ADI 5804 and ADI 5901).

But this is just
one of the laws that make up the legislative constellation which is gradually
strengthening the impunity of State agents who commit violations of fundamental
rights against the civilian population.

In that sense,
the federal intervention in Rio de Janeiro was defined as being of a "military
nature" by the decree that established it which, in addition, appointed as
controller an active-duty general who thus adds the functions of Secretary of
Security to his regular functions as Eastern Military Commander.

Symbolically,
the gradual expansion of military justice – especially in relation to civilians
– denies Brazilian society the opportunity to consolidate its break away from
the throes of authoritarianism and its commitment to democracy and fundamental
rights.

In fact, it strengthens a return to the type of authoritarianism which
has been manifesting itself politically and socially, as shown in the case of
the recent military intervention in Rio de Janeiro, across the country.

The outlook

The
militarization of security is phenomenon on the rise in Brazil and Rio de
Janeiro is only the first step, according to General Villas Boas.

It is also an
ineffective move for achieving its alleged purposes and a dangerous one too, for
it promotes increased violence, violence determined by race, class, and
territory of course.

Together with
the expansion of military justice, impunity consolidates violence when faced up
against the silence of institutions like the Supreme Federal Court.

As we have
seen, military justice, the competency of which has been expanded in recent
years, is partial and onerous. Lacking independence and impartiality to deal
with civilians, it is an open door that leaves us more vulnerable as a society.

The
institutional protection of impunity and corporatism which military justice provides
confronts us with a tragic outlook: that of increasing violence and
authoritarianism combining with the erosion of democracy and the rule of law.

Military Justice: authoritarian origins and corporate organization

The militarization of justice: the expansion of the jurisdiction of military justice

The outlook

Military Justice: authoritarian origins and corporate
organization

The militarization of justice: the expansion of the jurisdiction
of military justice