The Law of State Immunity before the Brazilian Supreme Court: what is at stake with the “Changri-La” case?

It was 1943 when the Changri-La fishing boat and its ten fishermen crew disappeared near Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro. But only in 2001 the Tribunal Marítimo da Marinha do Brasil recognized that the vessel had been sunk by a German submarine. The relatives of the victims sought compensation at the Brazilian courts for its material damages and non-pecuniary losses. However, they stumbled upon a customary norm of Public International Law: the rule prescribing that a State is entitled to immunity in respect of acta jure imperii before the domestic courts of another State. After a long journey within the Brazilian courts, the case reached the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) – the Brazilian Supreme Court, which blends functions of constitutional review and court of last appeal – and in March 2021, the trial finally started. In the Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal (ARE) 954858 – currently suspended after Justice Alexandre de Moraes’ request to see the records –, it is discussed whether human rights violations are an exception to the rule of States’ sovereign immunity. While the case has not yet reached a conclusion, some Justices have already expressed their legal views – their votes, as they are called in the Brazilian Supreme Court – offering potential outcomes for the discussion. In this essay, we analyze two issues present in some of the votes: absence of proper engagement with international legal arguments, revealing a detachment from international law, and the possible consequences of the thesis proposed by the reporting Justice, Edson Fachin. Our endeavor is both to comment and to explain what is at stake with the Changri-la case