On January 8, 2023, radical groups invaded and ransacked the main seats of power of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the National Congress, the Planalto Palace (seat of the executive branch), and the Federal Supreme Court, in Brasília. Coming one week after the inauguration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, these attacks were explicitly aimed at challenging the election results and destabilizing the constitutional order. In the aftermath of these events, legislative initiatives have emerged within the National Congress seeking to grant amnesty to those involved.

This article argues that any such initiative would be incompatible with Brazil’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly as interpreted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. While Amnesty Law (No. 6,683/1979) was originally enacted in the context of the military dictatorship, current proposals to extend amnesty to the perpetrators of the recent attacks revive its underlying logic of shielding individuals from accountability, raising concerns about the reemergence of mechanisms of impunity.

The Brazilian Amnesty Law and Its Contested Scope

In recent years, the Brazilian federal courts have consistently reaffirmed the need to review the amnesty law adopted at the end of the military regime. Enacted during Brazil’s transition to democracy, the law granted amnesty for political crimes committed between 1961 and 1979 and has been interpreted to extend to state agents responsible for serious human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Brazilian courts have increasingly set aside its effects in cases involving crimes against humanity, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

By way of illustration, the 5th Chamber of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) upheld an appeal by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal), ordering the acceptance of criminal charges against two forensic doctors for false statements and concealment of corpses in connection with deaths during the dictatorship. In its decision, the reporting judge emphasized that Brazil is subject to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose judgments must be respected in their effects and in the interpretation of domestic law.

This approach has also been reinforced by institutional measures within the National Council of Justice aimed at monitoring compliance with Inter-American Court decisions.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Obligations to Prevent Impunity

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been categorical in landmark cases such as Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v Brazil and Herzog et al. v Brazil: States may not resort to legislative measures, including amnesties, to prevent the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of serious human rights violations.

This interpretation is not limited to transitional justice contexts involving past authoritarian regimes. In Márcia Barbosa de Souza v Brazil, and Leite, Peres Crispim et al v Brazil, both decided in a democratic setting, the Court reaffirmed that political or legislative obstacles preventing the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations violate the American Convention on Human Rights. These cases are particularly relevant because they demonstrate that the prohibition of impunity is not confined to addressing crimes committed under dictatorship, but extends to contemporary failures of the State to ensure accountability.

Conclusion

Any amnesty for the acts of January 8 would reproduce, in the twenty-first century, a logic of structural impunity already condemned in the context of the military dictatorship, not because of the identity of the facts, but because of the similarity of the legal mechanisms used to erase responsibility. Such an initiative would expose Brazil to renewed international scrutiny and undermine the credibility of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the judiciary, and the mechanisms created to enforce international decisions.

In this sense, the precedent set in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) No. 7.330, demonstrates that a state measure that significantly reduces penalties for serious crimes may produce effects equivalent to impunity.

Similarly, the text approved in December 2025 by the Chamber of Deputies, which modifies the rules for determining sentences, substantially reduces the penalties applicable to those involved in the events of January 8 and is therefore capable of producing a comparable effect.

Rosa Weber, in her capacity as President of the Federal Supreme Court, recognized in a preliminary ruling delivered in January 2023 that favoring perpetrators of serious human rights violations undermines human dignity and neutralizes the State’s duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish.

By recreating a mechanism of impunity incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights, they function as forms of indirect amnesty already rejected by both the Supreme Federal Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.