arnnestv international $.50 WEST COAST OFFICE P. O. Box 1182 Palo Alto, CA94302 (41 s| 325-97 1 4 or 325-9907 Report on Allegat¡ons of Torture in Brazil AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL the bulk ol an intensive and violalioni of the IJniversal study has been submilted to Brazil, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the Brazilian.Ambassador to,Great Britain, the Secretary General of the lJnited Nations, and- America pepartment of the National 'Coun-ciljointly with the Latin of Churches.of Christ in the IJ,S.A' and the Division for Latin Am}rica ol the IJnited States Cotholic Conference-to the Human Rights Commission of the Organizatíon of American States. It is being senl to all Llnited Slates senators and congTessmen, and lo a hundred and thirty'two United Nations delegalions. Amnesty Inlernationol is an independenl, non' material. sectãrían, and non'governmenlal organizalion, with in- corroborated by supportive London and U'S' national lernational headquarters in perpetrators of ill treatment in New York. has consultalive stalus with the The names of victims and headquarlers It were so numercus that it IJnited Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Eurqpe. On submitted to Amnesty lnternational to summarize the bulk of the material in the form Seprember 5, 1972, the first part oÍ this report, which includes was decided the nomes of 1,081 atteged victims ol torture in Brazil, was released. The second part, which appeored shortly thereafter, conlains the names ol alleged lorlurers (see foreword by Sean MacBríde). In his foreword, Mr. MacBride inviles a response the Drazilian governmen!' In Drazil, the only responses lo lrom entry in the two dale hove been repealed verbøl attacks against Amnesty In' reported as responsible for ill treatment' Each congruity of ternational and o new press law forbidding the mention of ajpendices is crosvreferenced to indicate the Am nest y's name'-The Editor' multiple in formation sources. The preænt report, necessarily limited and incomplete, deals Foreword with ihe period from December t 3, 1968 to July 15' 1972. Although Brazil has not permitted an independent body of The Amnesty lnternationat inquiry into allegations of torture observers to enter the country to investigate such charges, we in Brazil was carried out in April and May oî 1972. As Brazil feel that such precise and specific accusations have been made has consistently refused to allow repreæntatives of that it is diflicult to discount thpii substance. We ask, of American States ian government resPond to the very he{p, and that an indePendent permitted to enter Brazil in order to î*'i#f;:i'i::i - North America. A striction, accusations of serious and of the Universal representative of Amnesty International has carefully 9,18, l9 Human Rights. considered available documents in an effort to choos only the Declaration of most soundly based allegations forinclusion in this report. Sean MacBride Chairman received no cooperation from the As the Amnesty inquiry Executive Committee sources of information were necessarily International authorities, its -Amnesty lnternational onesided. Evaluation of the information received was thus 1 interest for mcnrhcts of the inte¡national conlntttnily to be given access to mattcrs conoerncd with tsraz-il's internal Background ir.i.di.tinn, it would turn to the United Nations or the Organiz.ation of Âmcrican States." ln fact, tþc Intcr-American to the Report Commission on [lt¡rnan Rights of the Organization of Ame¡ican States askcd permission in 1970 lo investigate allcgations ol torturc in Brazil ín lot'rt, but thc requcst was tn March of 19 ti refu,vr¿. Tho Br¿zilian governnrcnt clitl say at that tinlc, sourues, botlt howcver, that it would not ignorc roqLlcsts for infornlation, Â nrrrcsty Int e 7' or t and sulrseqtrently sullmittctl a dossicr to thc lntcr'Amcricun London in Âlic¡ exrmination of this dossicr, along with tltc cnstting discussion, Amncsty's reprcsentatives Commissiorl. t)uring othor subnlissions on the subject, thc comlnission stated, af ter rrn intlepcntlent mission to Brazil could serve to suggostc(l thll 28th session held rln May l-5 of this year, that "because of itbrold if thc chargcs werc proved to bc its irripr.rv. Iìruzil's irttage difficulties that have hindered examination of this case, it rvas r.rnwilling to commit itself to thc inriccuratc.'l'hc crnbassy possiblc to otrtain absolutely conclusive proof of trut tlitl protnisc to ilrvcstigate a number of has not been such u nrissittn, the or untruth of the acts rcported in the clcnunciations' prisoncrs wlttl wcre thought to have been freed. tiuth cast's ol Llowevêr, the cvidcnce collcctetl in this casc leads lo the suoh pcrsons was supplicd to them, the Although u list of pcrsuasive. presuntption that in Brazil serious cases ol torturc, prt>rnise rl infornratìttn w¿rs ncver rece ivctl. abusc, ancl Inaltreatment havc occurrcd to persons of both sexes while thcy wcre dcprivcd of thcir litrerty." On Âpril 29, 1970, Arrtncsty Internationa'l sub¡nitted cxtracts received up to that clate -as wcll asa list of fr.,m ìllc ntittcri¡l 'I'he commission further recomllrcndetl that thc govornlnent tortttrcrs antl thc natncs <lf solÌìe pcrsons reported to nr¡llcs of a thorough investigation, thc results of which would lrlong with o proposed prcss release on carry out hlvc tlirrtl t¡ntlcr torturc, by indcpcndcnt judges at thc comtnission's next Lnrbassy ancl to the Braz-ilian be exantinetl the subjcct to thc Brazilian rcquestcd that Braz-il punish, to the inquiry be session. Thc committcc government, again asking that an independent persons that the cvirlenoe proves this letter, or to a full e comnrissjoncd, No reply' was rcceived to violations of human rights' Again, was duly issued on to ha follr>w-up lctter, and thc prcss statement respo n authorities has bcen negative; Muy 11, 1970. offici in that their own organsr such as of Human Rights, can deal with which followecl this and other the Council for the Dcfense Dcspitc t hc public outcry reports of torture that do occur' staIcmcnts conccrning torture in Brazil. rcports of the isolated alarming naturc continued to ill trcatnrent of an extremely appcared to be little chance of a mission to lnternational from many sources' and in Thus, as therc reach Anrncsty Brazii being pt.nritte,l to enter the country in thc near futurc, I970, thc lntcrnational Executive (lommittee of -Brazilian Scptcrnhcr of thõ Council on Human Righfs has recently that a mission be unde¡takcn to Brazil in because Amncsty'propoæd been restructurotl lntl thus rendered even more unlikely to ordcr to invcstigate the'reports that hatl been received' dcal with such v:rious oharges than has been thc case in the Amncsty lnternational continued to ¡eccive the Brazilian Èmbassy in London was past, and as ln Novenrbe r of 1970, recent reports of tortu¡c, the lntcrnational a mission. Amnesty's letter of widespretd and approachcd with regard to such felt that an attempt should pcrmitting such an investigation could Executive Comrnittce of Amnesty inquiry stressed that colloct and assess available matcrial and but. adcl to the stature of the Brazilian nation which had be made to not Europe, lt was considered that such material playerl a leading role in thc work which culminated in the testimonies in analyzed in an effort to determine the Inter-Amcrican (-'onvention on Human Rights' The letter could usefully be probable of the charges being raised, and as a means of continucd that Amnesty lnternational was "anxious to be able validity favorably upon the workings of thc Brazilian calling the attention of the public and of the Brazilian to rcport raised in (-'ouncil on Iluman Rights." Again, however, approval was not authorities to the seriousness of thc charges still bcing presented here' forthcoming. this regard. It is this report that is After further approaches by Amncsty lnte¡national, including a joint appeal for a mission of inquiry with 14 other human rights organizations (Oommission of the Churches on Study of International Affairs, Catholic International Union of Socia.l Scrvicc, Committee on Socicty, Developmcnt and Peacc Iægislation Since 1964 f SODEPAXI, Conlcdcration Mondiale, and others), the Brazilian ambassador to Lontlon reiterated in a letter dated June 16, l9'll that this position remain unchanged. ln his The doctrine of national securitY lettcr, he stated that "the Brazilian government has a deep and abiding respcct for human rights, and is guided in its actions The present Brazilian government has elaborated a "doctrine by its own domestic legislation and by the international on the following fundamental The government of nätional security" based conventions to which it is signatory." thc division of the world into two maintai¡ that it was opposcd to the us€ of theoretical concepts: continued to with Bra'zil accepting the role of a and that when torture occurred, it was only in isolated antagonistic bloci torturc, the United States of America within or controllable by the central "priJileged satcllite" of instances, and was not condoned Christian" bloc; a non-competitive uuthoritics. the. "democratic and economy with ¡elation to the U.S.; the sacrifice of a part of favor of an interdependence amhassador's letter stated that "in thc cvent of the the national sovereignty i¡ Thc states in an effort to attain governmcnt feeling that at any time it would be in the national between the different American ii:, e il c()rnrìì()lì objcctivcs; thc rnttnopoly of power in the South Arnerica¡r suhcontinent try Brazil; and the strugglo against Historical Note conlrnurtisnl and lgainst all socialist icleologies, including those which arisc rvitlrin thc church. on Br azil State organs 'fo bccn rìecessary for thc structure of achicvc thcse aints it has Brazil covers about half the area of South Anlcrica: it is as following ways: Braz-il to chlnge in the large as the LJnited States minus Alaska.