Paulo Leivas: 'A country that does not defend human rights is not a country'

Fernanda CanofreSouth 21 Brazil is the country that kills the most human rights defenders in the Americas. This data was highlighted in a report by Amnesty International in 2017. In 2018, right at the beginning of the year, on March 14th, the execution of councilwoman Marielle Franco (PSOL) and her driver Anderson Gomes, in downtown Rio de Janeiro, further exposed this wound.

To discuss where the Brazilian State is failing and how to improve the protection of human rights defenders, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio Grande do Sul hosted a national debate last Friday (18), at the headquarters of the Regional Prosecutor's Office in the 4th Region, in Porto Alegre. The objective of the meeting, which brought together authorities, representatives from various instances of the Judiciary and representatives of civil society, was to gather contributions to be attached to a public civil action by the MPF, which aims to oblige the Union to adopt the necessary measures to develop a National Plan for Permanent Protection of Human Rights Defenders.

Created from a complaint by a person who felt threatened, the lawsuit was dismissed in the first instance. However, on appeal to the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region, it presents a chance for conciliation between the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and the federal government. There is no estimated timeframe for how long the process might take.

One of the originators of the public hearing and the public civil action, federal prosecutor Paulo Leivas has worked within the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) for over 20 years. His work with human rights, however, began before he joined the MPF, when he was still a student and worked on popular legal aid projects in peripheral areas. Among the cases that most marked his career within the MPF, he says are the actions for the rights of the LGBT population. One of them, defending the extension of social security benefits to same-sex couples, was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It was the first of its kind in the country.

In his day-to-day work, the prosecutor says he continues to deal with indigenous and quilombola issues, which have generated many lawsuits, especially in Rio Grande do Sul. During the hearing, he spoke with... South21 Regarding why the National Plan is urgent:

Sul21: Brazil is currently the country that kills the most human rights defenders in the Americas. According to a report by Amnesty International, 58 were killed in 2017 up to August. In your opinion, how did we get to this point?

Paulo Leivas: We are in a process of regression, especially in the area of ​​human rights. Human rights in a broad sense, social rights, the right to freedom of expression, the right to health. Naturally, civil society reacts, people react to this loss of rights. In the rural issue, for example, we know that Brazil has not yet implemented its agrarian reform. Indigenous lands are in a process of stagnation in demarcations. So, people are fighting for their rights, and the reaction of groups that oppose human rights is very strong. Brazil is a country that has become accustomed to this oppression of groups, this immense social inequality, the legacy of slavery, land concentration, lack of knowledge of indigenous rights. And people are mobilizing and resisting in defense of their rights. We are seeing an inability of the State to protect these people, for various reasons. That is what we want to study and understand, mainly because we have cases of human rights defenders who have been killed, with some worldwide repercussions. Recently, we had the case of councilwoman Marielle Franco, but we also had the deaths of Sister Dorothy Stang (killed in 2005 in Pará) and Chico Mendes (killed in 1988 in Acre).

Sul21: These two cases are linked to the struggle for land. In the 1990s, headlines about violence in the countryside due to land disputes were more frequent. In your opinion, has this violence worsened in recent years?

Leivas: The statistics we have show that the number of deaths in Brazil is increasing. Most of them are linked to rural areas. I don't know how to compare it to many years ago, but I know that it has been increasing in recent years. Violence in rural areas in Brazil has always been a major problem. It's not something new.

Sul21: The idea for the Federal Public Prosecutor's plan arose from a public civil action. Can you explain it?

Leivas: This is a lawsuit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) aiming to compel the Federal Government, primarily through the Ministry of Human Rights, to develop a plan detailing the actions of the Brazilian State, at all levels of the federation, to fulfill the policy for human rights defenders. We currently have general norms and a decree, but no law yet. There is a bill currently being processed in the National Congress; for now, we only have the decree, but we need a plan. We need the government to state what goals it intends to achieve, within what timeframe, what the diagnosis of this situation is, to acknowledge the violence, and to identify the areas with the highest rates of violations. The data we have shows that Pará, for example, is one of the states with the highest number of cases of violence against human rights defenders. In these areas with more cases, there needs to be more targeted action. My impression is that, currently, the federal government is addressing one issue here and there, according to its limited capacity, but we lack a plan.

Sul21: What is the current status of this case in the courts?

Leivas: We lost in the first instance; it was dismissed. One of the federal government's arguments is that it should be a bill – which, incidentally, has been stalled in the National Congress for many years – and without that bill, the Plan cannot be implemented. Now we will try to reconcile, to reach an agreement with the government [while it is in the second instance].

Sul21: The plan proposed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office mentions "permanent protection." Why the inclusion of this word? 

Leivas: The word "permanent" means that it cannot be something one-off; it has to be something available to anyone who feels threatened or vulnerable. There is a discussion about what the criteria for inclusion in this program should be. Civil society understands that the mere situation of vulnerability or risk already justifies action by the federal government. While the federal government understands that there has to be a concrete threat. In other words, this idea of ​​permanence gives the sense that it is not merely a one-off action when someone is threatened. Vulnerable groups already need protection from the State.

Sul21: How does it work today?

Leivas: There needs to be a concrete threat. There are state committees, a federal committee, and some states have spoken with entities to do this work. Rio Grande do Sul had one, but doesn't anymore. It was Amencar, an affiliated organization. Since the agreement wasn't renewed, this work is now handled by technicians based in Brasília. This makes everything more difficult. There are few people, and they lack the reach and capacity to serve all of Brazil.

Sul21: What should be done?

Leivas: First, all states should assume their responsibility. The state is obligated to fulfill this role, which is a matter of public safety and human rights. Second, there is a complaint that the bodies of these programs are filled only by public servants. Civil society participates little or not at all in this program.

Sul21: At the public hearing convened by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, there were several representatives of civil society. What does the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office intend to build from it?

Leivas: The idea is to build the general outlines of this plan and take them to the federal government for discussion, so that it can create a plan within a timeframe to be established. This plan should incorporate what was presented at the hearing.

Sul21: The call for the hearing uses a photo of Marielle Franco. How does her case fit into this increasingly harsh context?



Leivas: Her case highlights the urgency of this program, of this policy. Because a person with so much visibility was killed, imagine the people who don't have that visibility. She was a member of parliament, meaning she had the capacity to protect herself. For other people who don't have that position of authority, it's much more difficult; they are much more vulnerable. This makes the issue even more urgent. Her case was one of the reasons for a public hearing requested by Brazilian civil society at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). The hearing had two objectives: to demand that the Brazilian government investigate Marielle's death, and second, to provoke action from the federal government regarding the policy.

Sul21: Based on your work, do you think it's becoming more difficult to work on the topic of human rights?

Leivas: I don't think it's fair to say it's become more difficult. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office has always had a very strong presence in the area of ​​human rights, and this has even been strengthened by the setbacks we are seeing. The Public Prosecutor's Office has autonomy and a duty to defend human rights. We are having more work now; that's the change. The number of violations, hate speech, and threats against people who defend the rights of minorities has increased. We are indeed seeing a considerable increase in this situation.

Sul21: Do these demands arise from complaints or public facts?

Leivas: The public civil action was prompted by a complaint from a person who felt threatened and contacted the Public Prosecutor's Office. Generally, these complaints don't reach the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office because they occur at the state level. We receive some cases and follow them in the media.

Sul21: In Rio Grande do Sul, what is the main demand of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office at this moment?

Leivas: From what I know, it follows the pattern of the whole of Brazil. The indigenous issue is perhaps the most complicated today in Rio Grande do Sul. The 2016 statistic, regarding the death that occurred in the state, was that of an indigenous leader. There is a request from indigenous leaders regarding this issue. Rural workers are always threatened, everywhere, and also the issue of homeless people, people who work and are without shelter. They are also a highly vulnerable group.

Sul21: Several studies show a sense of punitivism in most of the Brazilian population. Often, even state agents talk about "human rights." What happens to a country that begins to treat human rights as a secondary issue or something that gets in the way?

Leivas: A country that does not defend human rights is not a country. A place that does not protect human rights would not even be accepted into the community of nations. When a country joins the United Nations, it automatically has to agree to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A country that does not act to protect them would suffer international sanctions. Today, human rights are the minimum for a country to be recognized as a nation and to be considered civilized. People don't understand this. Human rights are not a ?It's the very basics. It's what makes us human, what allows us to live in society. Without it, it would be a return to barbarism, to slavery, to the absence of a rule of law, where people would resolve their differences through violence.

Sul21: Is this a risk we run as a society?

Leivas: People don't understand that what's a risk to us is a risk to everyone. Including those who say that human rights defend "the rights of criminals." And one day they too will need human rights.