been manipulated. 90 Lastly, Rodolfo Konder stated that he could clearly hear Mr. Herzog’s cries while he was tortured by members of the DOI/CODI. 91 132. On October 27, 1978, the federal judge, Marció José de Moraes, delivered judgment declaring that Vladimir Herzog had died from unnatural causes when he was in the DOI/CODI/SP. The judge indicated that there had been no reason for Mr. Herzog to wear a belt because he was wearing a one-piece suit; he also referred to the illegality of Vladimir Herzog’s detention, as well as the evidence of the torture to which he had been subjected. 92 133. The judge asserted that the supplementary report (whose main conclusion was the ‘occurrence of suicide by hanging’) was worthless because this document had been drawn up based on the autopsy report, which had been proved to have been fabricated. He also noted that the statements taken during the Army’s investigation in favor of the Federal Union’s version had not been repeated during the proceeding and had no probative value because they were completely contrary to the testimonies taken judicially in keeping with the adversarial principle. 93 Thus, the Federal Union was unable to prove its version of Vladimir Herzog’s suicide. 134. In addition, the judge concluded that the crimes of abuse of power and torture had been perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog and the other political prisoners detained in the DOI/CODI, and therefore required that the case file be forwarded to the prosecutor of the Military Jurisdiction. 94 135. The Union filed an appeal against this judgment on November 17, 1978. 95 In 1983, the Federal Appeals Court declared that a legal relationship existed between the parties of the Declaratory Action and the Union, which consisted in the obligation of the latter to compensate the damage arising from Mr. Herzog’s death, and indicated that damages should be claimed by an action for compensation. The Union filed a request for reconsideration of this decision (“embargos infringentes”). 96 On May 18, 1994, the Federal Regional Court of the third region rejected the appeal, 97 and the decision became final on September 27, 1995. G. The Amnesty Law 90 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, folio 431/452, Preliminary and sentencing hearing in Declaratory action No. 136/76, of May 16, 1978 (evidence file, folio 4349 to 4351); Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, folio 448, Statement by Paulo Sérgio Markun in Declaratory action No. 136/76, of May 16, 1978 (evidence file, folios 4362 to 4366). 91 Report of the National Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 3300 and 3301). Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Judgment in Declaratory action No. 136/76, October 27, 1978 (evidence file, folios 4074 to 4090). 92 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Judgment in Declaratory action No. 136/76, October 27, 1978 (evidence file, folios 4083 to 4091). 93 94 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Judgment in Declaratory action No. 136/76, October 27, 1978 (evidence file, folios 4028 to 4094). 95 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, folios 725-743, Appeal by the Federal Union, November 17, 1978 (evidence file, folio 4377 to 4396). The “embargos infringentes” were an exclusive defense remedy based on the absence of unanimity in a collegiate decision. They also contested specific points on which there was disagreement. It should be pointed out that only the contested points could have suspensive effects or be reconsidered; the rest of the ruling remained unaltered. 96 97 Federal Regional Court of the Third Region, Judgment on the request for reconsideration. No. 89.03.7264-2, of May 18, 1994 (evidence file, folio 4315 to 4328). 29