Brazil agrees to compensate family of journalist killed during dictatorship 50 years ago
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's government on Thursday signed a landmark agreement accepting responsibility for the killing of Vladimir Herzog, a prominent journalist and political prisoner whom the military dictatorship falsely claimed had killed himself while in custody 50 years ago.
Herzog's family celebrated the official admission of liability, which involved the government agreeing to pay them compensation.
'This apology is not merely symbolic,' the journalist's son, Ivo Herzog, said from the Vladimir Herzog Institute in Sao Paulo, an organization dedicated to preserving his memory. 'It is an act by the state that makes us believe the current Brazilian state doesn't think like the Brazilian state of that time.'
Under the settlement, the government will pay nearly 3 million Brazilian reais (about $544,800) to the Herzog family as compensation for moral damages. The agreement also includes retroactive payments of a monthly pension to Herzog's widow, Clarice Herzog, from a prior court order.
Along with Rubens Paiva — whose story was portrayed in the 2025 Oscar-winning picture 'I'm Still Here'— Herzog's case became a national symbol of the fight to bring justice to the victims of the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. Official estimates put the number of dead and missing during the regime at 434.
Herzog, commonly known by his nickname Vlado, was a Jewish journalist born in 1937 in Osijek, a Yugoslavian city that is now part of Croatia. His family escaped the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia in 1941 and settled in Brazil.
Herzog was the news director of a São Paulo television station — the state-run TV Cultura — when, in October 1975, intelligence agents summoned him for questioning on suspicion that he had ties to the outlawed Communist Party. Herzog, who had denied any connection to the Communist Party, walked into the Sao Paulo intelligence headquarters to testify and never came out.
At the time, the Brazilian military claimed he had hanged himself in his cell with a belt. The government released a public photo of his body, which was later proven to have been staged.
Jorge Messias, Brazil's federal legal counselor, praised the agreement Thursday as representative of Brazil's commitment to democracy.
'Today, we are witnessing something unprecedented: The Brazilian state formally honoring the memory of Vladimir Herzog,' he said.
Messias said the agreement held particular significance in this moment of tumult for Brazil's democracy.
Military officers accused of plotting a coup to keep former president Jair Bolsonaro in power despite his failure to win re-election in 2022 are standing trial in a historic case before the Supreme Court,
'In the 2022 election, we stood at a crossroads: Either to reaffirm democracy or move toward the closure of the Brazilian state, with all the horrors we lived through for 21 years,' Messias said.
Ivo Herzog said the settlement closes a painful chapter in his family's decades-long fight for justice.
In 1978, a court ruling issued while Brazil was still under dictatorship ordered an investigation into the circumstances of his father's death.
In 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Brazil guilty of crimes against humanity for Herzog's killing and prevented the case from expiring under the statute of limitations. The ruling also required the state to acknowledge and formally apologize for the crime but it didn't at the time.
'This has been a struggle not only of the Herzog family, but of all the families of the murdered and disappeared,' Ivo Herzog said.
____
Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
32 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
In April, a pro-choice demonstrator chants outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in South Carolina's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. "The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday. "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious." The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support. The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'" "This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued. "No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not." South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions. The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider." "If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve." The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man convicted in DeLand murder plotted with victim's stepdaughter for insurance payout
A man was convicted and sentenced to life in prison June 26 for his part in a plot with his girlfriend to kill her stepfather in DeLand and cash in on his insurance money. Perry Stanley Sr., 48, of Apopka, was found guilty as charged of first-degree murder. He was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Blackburn sentenced Stanley to the mandatory life in prison without parole. Stanley shot Terrance Gibson, 59, of DeLand on Jan. 31, 2019, in an open lot on West Euclid Avenue. Stanley and Gibson's stepdaughter, Myesha Williams, 36, had increased Gibson's accidental death insurance policy from $25,000 to $750,000 16 days before his murder, according to State Attorney's Office Public Information Officer Haley Harrison. They expected to receive $150,000 from the policy, she wrote. Stanley pretended to be Gibson during a phone call to confirm the change to the insurance agent. Detectives recovered a cellphone used by Stanley near the scene of the murder. Detectives learned that Stanley called Williams seven minutes before the murder. "We do not give up our fight to make justice a reality for the citizens of the 7th Circuit. This case demonstrates our resolve," State Attorney R.J. Larizza stated in the press release. DeLand Police investigated the case with help from the Volusia Sheriff's Office. Assistant State Attorneys Helen Schwartz and Annamarie Danylo prosecuted the case. Williams pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder with a firearm as part of a plea agreement that calls for her to face between 25 to 50 years in prison with credit for time served. She agreed to testify about the plot and cooperate with law enforcement. Williams had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder which carries a sentence of mandatory life in prison. Williams is awaiting sentencing. This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Man guilty in DeLand murder arranged by victim's stepdaughter
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court ruling in discrimination case is step forward | Opinion
