Oscar-nominated film reignites debate over Brazil’s Amnesty Law

RIO DE JANEIRO (CN) — The first Brazilian film ever to compete for Best Picture at the Academy Awards revisits one of the country’s most notorious cases of human rights violations under its military dictatorship, which lasted from 1964 to 1985.

Also nominated for Best International Feature and Best Actress, “I’m Still Here” will compete at the 97th Academy Awards on March 2. The film follows Eunice Paiva’s decadeslong pursuit of justice for her husband, engineer and congressman Rubens Paiva, who was abducted from their Rio de Janeiro home by the military on Jan. 20, 1971. He was never seen again.

Left alone to raise five children, Eunice — portrayed by Fernanda Torres, who won Brazil’s first Golden Globe for Best Actress on Jan. 5 — returned to law school, graduating at 47 years old. She then started a legal battle against the Brazilian government to uncover the truth about her husband’s disappearance.

In 1996, 25 years after Rubens Paiva was taken, the government officially recognized his death at the hands of the dictatorship and issued a death certificate. On the same day of the Oscar nominations announcement, authorities amended the certificate to state that his death resulted from state violence. His body was never recovered, and no one has been held accountable.

The film’s release has reignited scrutiny over Brazil’s 1979 Amnesty Law, which has shielded military officials from prosecution for crimes committed under the dictatorship.

“Since it was passed, the amnesty law has been a legal barrier to holding torturers and human rights violators accountable,” said André Carneiro Leão, a public defender and former president of the National Human Rights Council.

Enacted while the military was still in power, Law No. 6.683 granted amnesty to political dissidents but also pardoned members of the regime responsible for torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The law remains one of the biggest obstacles to transitional justice in Brazil — efforts that include truth-seeking, reparations, accountability and security reform.

In 2014, the National Truth Commission, which spent two years investigating crimes committed under the dictatorship, published a 976-page report naming 377 people involved in human rights violations. The report recommended criminal, civil and administrative prosecution for 196 still-living perpetrators and urged Congress to revoke amnesty protections for dictatorship agents.

“This report is one of the most significant moments in Brazil’s history. It proved that torture was not an isolated crime but a state policy,” said José Carlos Dias, an attorney and former coordinator of the commission.

Despite the findings, the Federal Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the amnesty law was constitutional, effectively blocking prosecutions.

Leão argues that the ruling conflicts with Article 5 of Brazil’s Constitution, which prohibits amnesty for terrorism and serious human rights violations. “We consider all crimes committed under the dictatorship to fall into this category,” he said.

He also points to loopholes in the law itself, which states that only measures carried out in accordance with legal provisions for maintaining public order qualify for amnesty.

“In Rubens Paiva’s case, there was no court order for the invasion of his home, his detention or his arrest. And no law could have authorized torture, murder or the disappearance of bodies,” Leão said.

In 2014, federal prosecutors indicted five military officials for Rubens Paiva’s murder and the hiding of his body. Three of them have since died. After years of legal appeals, the case stalled at the Supreme Court in 2018.

‘Bursting a bubble’

Following the film’s success, the case — and the broader debate over amnesty — has gained renewed traction.

“It seems like the film is bursting a bubble,” said Fernando Seliprandy, a historian at the Federal University of Paraná who studies the memory of the dictatorship in cinema. “Audiovisual media has a unique ability to propel discussions forward, which is why it plays a central role in transitional justice.”

In October 2024, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes requested an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office on the trial. That same month, defense attorney Rodrigo Roca, who represents one of the accused officers, criticized the renewed scrutiny.

“The case sat dormant for 10 years, and suddenly, an Oscar-nominated film comes out and the case moves again,” he told Brazilian newspaper Metrópoles. “The message Brazil sends internationally is that Brazilian institutions only work when someone is watching.”

On Jan. 28, Deputy Attorney General Maria Caetana Cintra Santos formally responded, stating that it is up to the Federal Supreme Court to decide whether the amnesty law applies to the military officers. “The appellant’s argument is plausible, particularly in light of recent international court rulings deeming the application of amnesty laws to serious human rights violations inappropriate,” Santos wrote.

Adding to the legal uncertainty, in a separate case involving former military personnel during the dictatorship, Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino has proposed a ruling on whether the amnesty law applies to “permanent crimes” — offenses that began during the dictatorship but continue today, such as concealment of a corpse. Dino, the case’s rapporteur, cited “I’m Still Here” in his reasoning, arguing that keeping families from retrieving their loved ones’ remains is an ongoing crime and should not be protected by amnesty.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a 2014 lawsuit, ADPF No. 320, seeking to apply international human rights principles that bar states from granting amnesty for crimes they themselves committed.

Dias, the former truth commission coordinator, remains skeptical that the amnesty law will be overturned: “I don’t believe it will change, unfortunately,” he said.

But he sees the fight for justice as more important than ever.

“I’m very concerned because we’ve seen military officers conspiring for a new coup, and many others staying dangerously silent. Civil society needs to say, ‘Enough. We will not allow another coup.’”

For Leão, “I’m Still Here” is a reminder of how art can help preserve memory, but he argues that it cannot replace legal accountability.

“The amnesty law must be removed from Brazil’s legal system — at least where it applies to military crimes — so we can restore a human rights-respecting legal order,” he said.