screams and the “interrogator’s” orders for the “electric prod” [Pimentinha], an instrument used to apply electric shock to torture detainees.154 100. The Military Prosecutor alleged that the out-of-court statement given by journalist Rodolfo Osvaldo Konder should be disallowed as the military investigation was not a judicial proceeding 155 and ultimately there was no reason to accept the statement. 156 Thus, on February 12, 1976, it was determined that “because no crime has been committed”, the investigation should be closed. 157 On March 8, 1976, that decision was confirmed by the Judge Advocate of Military Justice.158 ii. Declaratory action filed by Vladimir Herzog’s next of kin 101. On April 19, 1976, Clarice Herzog and her two sons, Ivo and André, both minors, filed a Declaratory Action with the São Paulo Federal Court asking the court “to find the Federal Union responsible for the arbitrary detention of Vladimir Herzog, the torture to which he was subjected and his death.” 159 In their civil action, they stated that because Vladimir Herzog was on the premises of the Second Army’s DOI/CODI/SP, the Federal Union was responsible for his physical safety 160 and that the Second Army’s official note reporting his death did not “accurately portray the events that transpired in the DOI/CODI facilities on October 25, 1975.”161 To illustrate the contradiction, they made reference to the statement made by Rodolfo Osvaldo Konder who said that “like all the others, the one-piece suit they gave him [Vladimir] to wear inside the DOI/CODI facilities did not have a belt.”162 102. On July 2, 1976, the Federal Union presented its defense argument based on the legal opinion [parecer] from the Army Prosecutor’s Office and requested that the action filed be declared inadmissible.163 In that opinion, the Army Prosecutor’s Office argued that in the March 8, 1976 ruling of the military court, the Judge Advocate had decided that the case was to be closed on the grounds that “[n]o crime was involved in the suicide of former journalist Vladimir Herzog.” 164 It [the Federal Union] also observed that “what happened was that Vladimir Herzog appeared before the authorities of his own free will; it was not a detention.”165 It also wrote that the arguments made in the declaratory action filed by Clarice Herzog are “inconsistent”166 regarding the journalist’s torture and death, and indicated that the cause of his death was 154 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 2, fls. 278-279, Declarações a termo de Rodolfo Osvaldo Konder, del 7 de noviembre de 1975. 155 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 129, Parecer do Ministério Público Militar solicitando el archivo, del 12 de febrero de 1976. 156 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 4, fls. 654, Parecer do Ministério Público Militar, del 10 de febrero de 1976. 157 Texto original: “[p]or inexistencia de crime a punir”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 129, Parecer do Ministério Público Militar solicitando el archivo, del 12 de febrero de 1976. 158 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fl 130/132, Decisión del archivo del Inquérito Policial Militar, del 8 de marzo de 1976. 159 Texto original: “[d]eclare a responsabilidade da Uniao Federal pela prisao arbitraria de Vladimir Herzog, pelas torturas a que foi submetido e por sua mort[e]”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 2, fls.333, Petición de Clarice Herzog y otros, de fecha 16 de mayo de 1978, en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76. 160 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 2, fls.328, Petición de Clarice Herzog y otros, de fecha 16 de mayo de 1978, en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76. 161 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 2, fls.326, Petición Inicial de la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 19 de abril de 1976. 162 Texto original: “[o] macacão que lhe deram para vestir nas dependências do DOI, a exemplo de todos os outros, não tinha cinto”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 2, fls.327, Petición de Clarice Herzog y otros, de fecha 16 de mayo de 1978, en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76. 163 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 88/123, Parecer do Ministério do Exército en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 26 de mayo de 1976. 164 Texto original: “[n]ão houve participação criminosa no suicídio do ex jornalista Vladimir Herzog”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 90, Parecer do Ministério do Exército en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 26 de mayo de 1976. 165 Texto original: “[u]ma apresentação espontânea de Vladimir Herzog as autoridades não uma prisão”. Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 115, Parecer do Ministério do Exército en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 26 de mayo de 1976. 166 Proceso No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 1, fls. 116, Parecer do Ministério do Exército en la Ação Declaratória No. 136/76, del 26 de mayo de 1976. 23