Brazil agrees to compensate family of journalist killed during dictatorship 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.
____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump admin better-placed than courts to release Epstein files, judge says
NEW YORK, Aug 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge said on Wednesday that the Trump administration is in a better position than federal courts to release materials that would satisfy public curiosity about the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. In rejecting the Justice Department's bid to unseal records from the grand jury that indicted Epstein in 2019, Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Richard Berman wrote that the 70-odd pages of materials the grand jury saw paled in comparison to the 100,000 pages the government has from its Epstein investigation but is not releasing. The judge said the bid to persuade him to unseal the records was an apparent distraction from the Justice Department's decision in July not to release its files and directly cited another judge's decision earlier this month not to release similar materials from the grand jury that indicted Epstein's longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. "The instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession," Berman wrote. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Berman's decision came as President Donald Trump has faced criticism from his conservative base of supporters and congressional Democrats over the Justice Department's decision not to release the files from its Epstein investigation. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. His death in jail and his friendships with the wealthy and powerful sparked conspiracy theories that other prominent people were involved in his alleged crimes and that he was murdered. Trump, a Republican, had campaigned for a second term in 2024 with promises to make public Epstein-related files, and accused Democrats of covering up the truth. But in July, the Justice Department declined to release any more material from its investigation of the case and said a previously touted Epstein client list did not exist, angering Trump's supporters. To try to quell the discontent, Trump in July instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek court approval for the release of grand jury material from Epstein's case. Evidence seen and heard by grand juries, which operate behind closed doors to prevent interference in criminal investigations, cannot be released without a judge's approval. Justice Department investigations typically collect more material than prosecutors ultimately present to grand juries. Some of that evidence is sometimes eventually disclosed to the public during criminal trials. The Justice Department does not routinely disclose its evidence in cases where a defendant pleads guilty or, like Epstein, never faces trial, but it would not require judicial approval to release such materials. The grand jury that indicted Epstein heard from just one witness, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and saw a PowerPoint presentation and call logs, Berman wrote. On Aug. 11, a different Manhattan-based judge, Paul Engelmayer, denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and exhibits from Maxwell's case, writing that the material was duplicative of public testimony at her 2021 trial. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her conviction for recruiting underage girls for Epstein. "A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion - aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such," Engelmayer wrote. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty. After losing an appeal, she asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case.
Times
44 minutes ago
- Times
SAS soldier ‘who shot farmer' faces Australia's first war crime trial
A former member of the SAS is due to become the first Australian soldier to face a war crime trial, 13 years after allegedly shooting an unarmed farmer in an Afghan wheat field. Oliver Schulz, 43, is accused of murdering Dad Mohammad, a young father of two, in May 2012 in Dehjawze, a village in the Uruzgan province of southern Afghanistan. After his arrest by police in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales in March 2023, the case was bogged down in the local courts. On Wednesday Greg Grogin, a magistrate in Sydney, finally committed it to trial, having expressed frustration that it had taken so long to get to that stage. The landmark case is now set to begin in the supreme court in October and Schulz, who denies the charge, faces life in jail if found guilty. Schulz was already the first Australian soldier to be charged with a war crime. Despite the gravity of the alleged offence, he was granted bail because of the risk that he could be targeted by Taliban sympathisers while in jail. The catalyst for his arrest was the decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in 2020 to air graphic video of the alleged murder of Mohammad, who was shot three times while lying on his back. It was taken from the helmet camera of a dog handler who joined Schulz on the fateful patrol in March 2012. Mohammad is believed to have been 25 or 26. The video prompted a public outcry and a three-year criminal investigation after the prime minister at the time, Scott Morrison, described the video as shocking. Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, a killing constitutes a war crime of murder if the victim is not a combatant or is out of action due to injury or damage. Prosecutors must prove that the perpetrator knew, or was reckless regarding, the status of the victim. Schulz completed multiple tours of Afghanistan and was commended for gallantry before being stood down by the ADF after the video was broadcast in 2020. ABC revealed that the military had investigated the killing months after the alleged incident, having received complaints from Afghan villagers, but cleared the soldier of wrongdoing. An extended version of the helmet camera video, which is likely to feature prominently in the trial, was played at the committal hearing in April and May, when former SAS colleagues who witnessed the alleged murder were questioned. The video shows Schulz aboard a Black Hawk helicopter before it lands, and the soldiers running about 50 metres across a wheat field. The purpose of the mission was to kill or capture a Taliban insurgent called Mullah Payend, codename Objective Young Akira, the court was told. The dog handler and Schulz can be seen moving towards an open field and coming across Mohammad, who had been trying to fight off the dog. Schulz points his gun at Mohammad as the dog is called off. He looks around and asks three times whether he should 'drop this c***' before firing three shots at Mohammad, who had a condition that stunted growth in one leg. The initial ADF investigation, which cleared Schulz, painted a different picture. A military report claimed Mohammad had been seen 'tactically manoeuvring' on the ground as Schulz's helicopter approached. Smoke and flares were dropped from the helicopter but soldiers were forced to pursue him on foot as he could not be engaged from the air. He was then killed after being ordered to stop, according to the report. The police investigation was taken over by the Office of the Special Investigator, the body set up to prove alleged war crimes after an inquiry led by Paul Brereton, an army reserve major general and New South Wales supreme court judge. The Brereton inquiry concluded November 2020, recommending that 23 incidents and 19 individuals be referred for further investigation. It recommended that any alleged war crime should be tried in civilian court rather than in a military tribunal. Until now, Schulz's case had been overshadowed by that of another former SAS trooper, Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's most decorated living soldier. The 46-year-old corporal started a defamation case against Australian newspapers after they reported he had murdered four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan. The legal action backfired when a federal court judge ruled against him in June 2023. Roberts-Smith, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in 2011 for his service in Afghanistan, lost his appeal in May but had vowed to fight on.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Brazil judge targeted by US sanctions confident of Trump reversal
BRASILIA, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The judge at the center of escalating tensions between Brazil and the United States told Reuters he is counting on a change of heart from President Donald Trump to unwind sanctions against him, which he said lack consensus within the U.S. government. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ratcheted up restraining orders against former President Jair Bolsonaro during his trial for an alleged 2022 coup plot. Trump demanded an end to the case that he calls a "witch hunt" as he slapped a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and hit Moraes with financial sanctions that are putting Brazil's banks on edge. Despite fears of a spiraling crisis for bilateral relations, the judge expressed confidence in a late Tuesday interview at his Brasilia office that sanctions would be unwound against him via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. "A judicial challenge is possible and I have not yet found a U.S. or Brazilian lawyer or scholar who doubts the courts would overturn. But at this moment, I've chosen to wait. That's my choice. It's a diplomatic matter for the country," said Moraes. The standoff with Trump is the highest-profile test yet for the 56-year-old jurist, whose bald visage and muscular frame have come to define the Brazilian high court he joined eight years ago. He has taken the lead on many of the court's most prominent cases, cowing Elon Musk in a showdown over his social media platform, sending hundreds of right-wing rioters in the capital to prison and barring Bolsonaro from running for office. Navigating the U.S. crackdown on his personal finances and bilateral trade with Brazil has done little to change his routine, he said, which includes boxing, martial arts and a new favorite book: Henry Kissinger's "Leadership," the late U.S. diplomat's final volume on 20th century statecraft. Moraes said he trusts diplomacy will restore his standing in Washington. He said prosecutors blamed the current fallout on a campaign by allies of Bolsonaro, including the former president's lawmaker son Eduardo, who is in the U.S. and under investigation in Brazil for courting Trump's intervention in his father's case. "Once the correct information has been passed along, as is being done now, and the documented information reaches the U.S. authorities, I believe it won't even require any legal action to reverse (the sanctions). I believe that the U.S. executive branch itself, the president, will reverse them," Moraes said. Pressed on the reason for that confidence, Moraes said he was aware of internal divisions in the U.S. government that had slowed the sanctions and could still undermine them. "There was reluctance in the State Department and great reluctance in the Treasury Department," he said, without elaborating or explaining how he received that information. A State Department official with knowledge of the matter told Reuters separately that the sanctions against Moraes had faced substantial pushback from career officials. The actions against Moraes were "completely, legally inappropriate," said the source on condition of anonymity, adding that officials from the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control had initially said no but were overruled. A Treasury spokesperson said: "The Treasury Department and Office of Foreign Assets Control, along with the entire Trump administration, is in lockstep that Alexandre de Moraes has engaged in serious human rights abuse. Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Brazilian courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders, Moraes also said in the interview.
