113. Based on the foregoing, the Federal Judge deemed the Declaratory Action well-founded, and held that “a legal relationship existed between plaintiffs and respondent in the form of the latter’s obligation to pay the former material and moral damages for the death of journalist Vladimir Herzog.” 198 The judge also decided to send some parts of the case to the Prosecutor General of Military Justice [Procurador Geral da Justiça Militar] to undertake the appropriate legal measures. 199 According to the Federal Judge, the proceedings in the declaratory action revealed that the crime of abuse of authority had been committed and “vehement revelations” of torture came to light “not just of Vladimir Herzog, but of other political detainees as well, on the premises of the Second Army’s DOI/CODI.” 200 Thus, based on the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the understanding that “over and above respondent’s civil liability, this Court has an obligation to inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office of any crimes brought to this court’s attention in the course of discharging its function,”201 the judge ordered that the judgment and the witnesses’ statements be sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Military Justice [Procurador Geral da Justiça Militar].202 114. On November 17, 1978, the Federal Union filed an appeal to challenge that decision. 203 On February 14, 1979, the plaintiff filed her response to the appeal [contrarrazões ao recurso de apelação].204 In 1983, the Federal Court of Appeals, by a majority vote, declared that a legal relationship existed between plaintiffs and respondent “consisting of the obligation to pay damages for the harm caused by the journalist’s death.”205 However, it did not fix the amount of damages, stating that “these claims are best redressed in an ordinary suit for damages, if the plaintiffs so desire.” 206 Given that ruling by the Federal Court of Appeals, the Federal Union filed a motion for reconsideration, 207 the purpose of which was to have the Federal Court en banc hear the appeal 115. It was not until May 18, 1994 that the Federal Regional Court of the 3 rd Region denied [negou] the motion for reconsideration.208 That decision was published on July 25, 1995 and became a final judgment [trânsito em julgado] in favor of the plaintiffs on September 27, 1995. 209 [...]”.Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1130 – Sentencia proferida en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 198 Texto original: “[e]xistência de relação jurídica entre os As. [autores] e a R. [ré], consistente na obrigação deste indenizar aqueles pelos danos materiais e morais decorrentes da morte do jornalista Vladimir Herzog”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1148 – Sentencia proferida en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 199 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1149 – Sentencia proferida en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 200 Texto original: “[n]ão só em Vladimir Herzog, como em outros presos políticos nas dependências do DOI/CODI do II Exército”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1145 – Sentencia proferida en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 201 Texto original: “[f]ora do campo da responsabilidade civil da R. (demandada), tem este Juízo a obrigação de informar ao Ministério Publico quanto a existência de crimes que lhe cheguem ao conhecimento em razão do oficio”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.0134342 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1145 – Sentencia proferida en la Acción Declaratoria No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 202 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 5, fls. 1149 – Sentencia proferida en la Acción Declaratoria No. 136/76, del 27 de octubre de 1978. 203 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 4, fls. 725-743 – Apelación de la Unión Federal contra la Sentencia proferida en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 17 de noviembre de 1978. 204 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 4, fls. 744-779 –Contrarrazões ao recurso de apelação en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 14 de febrero de 1978. 205 Texto original: “[c]onsistente na obrigação desta indenizar aqueles danos decorrentes da morte do jornalista”. Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região, Sentencia de los Embargos infringentes No. 89.03.7264-2, fls. 923, del 18 de mayo de 1994. 206 Texto original: “[t]ais indagações estarão mais adequadas dentro de uma ação ordinária de indenização, se desejada pelos autores”. Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região, Sentencia de los Embargos infringentes No. 89.03.7264-2, fls. 923, del 18 de mayo de 1994. 207 Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região, Sentencia de los Embargos infringentes No. 89.03.7264-2, fls. 932, del 18 de mayo de 1994. 208 Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região, Sentencia de los Embargos infringentes No. 89.03.7264-2, fls 923, del 18 de mayo de 1994. 209 Extrato de andamento processual disponível no Portal do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região. Proceso No. 89.03.72642. Disponible en: www.trf3.jus.br 27