<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0104-9313</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Mana]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Mana]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0104-9313</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Programa de Pós-Graduação em Antropologia Social - PPGAS-Museu Nacional, da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0104-93132010000100002</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[On the contextual fabrication of persons and things: legal techniques and the human being's status after death]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Sobre a fabricação contextual de pessoas e coisas: as técnicas jurídicas e o estatuto do ser humano após a morte]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bevilaqua]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ciméa Barbato]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="A01">
<institution><![CDATA[,Paraná Federal University  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2010</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2010</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>5</volume>
<numero>se</numero>
<fpage>0</fpage>
<lpage>0</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0104-93132010000100002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0104-93132010000100002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0104-93132010000100002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[This paper discusses the fabrication of persons and things through legal techniques, taking as reference a study of Brazilian court rulings involving human beings after death. Analysis of these decisions reveals that any categorization of an entity as a person or thing depends on contingent distinctions made in particular situations, which in turn implies that law is in fact a powerful ontological device creating the world to which it refers. The contextuality of the person/thing distinction, partly associated with the complex topography of legal branches and specialities, allows different degrees of personification and reification to be identified, along with the possibility of fabricating persons and things by combining specific attributes from different entities.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="pt"><p><![CDATA[A partir do exame de decisões de tribunais estaduais brasileiros envolvendo a consideração jurídica do ser humano após a morte, este artigo procura identificar diferentes formas pelas quais as técnicas jurídicas constituem e distinguem pessoas e coisas. A análise dos julgamentos evidencia que a categorização de um ente como pessoa ou coisa depende de distinções contingentes efetuadas no exame de situações particulares, o que implica reconhecer o direito como um poderoso operador ontológico que efetivamente constrói o mundo ao qual suas disposições se referem. Em parte associado à complexa topografia de ramos e especialidades do direito, o caráter contextual da distinção entre pessoas e coisas permite identificar nas decisões judiciais diferentes graus de personificação e reificação, assim como a possibilidade de constituição de pessoas e coisas pela articulação de atributos de entes distintos.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Law]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Legal techniques]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Dead human beings]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Persons and things]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Direito]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Técnicas jurídicas]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Mortos]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Pessoas e coisas]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[  <font size="2" face="Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif">     <p><font face="verdana" size="4"><b>On the contextual   fabrication of persons and things: legal techniques and the human being's   status after death<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><b><sup>*</sup></b></a></b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="verdana" size="3"><b>Sobre a fabrica&ccedil;&atilde;o contextual de pessoas e   coisas: as t&eacute;cnicas jur&iacute;dicas e o estatuto do ser humano ap&oacute;s a morte</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>Cim&eacute;a   Barbato Bevilaqua</b></p>     <p>Professor on the Postgraduate   Program in Social Anthropology of Paran&aacute;   Federal University. E-mail:   &lt;<a href="mailto:cimea@uol.com.br">cimea@uol.com.br</a>&gt;</p>     <p>Translated   by David Rodgers    <br>   Translation   from <b><a href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-93132010000100001&lng=pt&nrm=iso" target="_blank">Mana</a></b><a href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-93132010000100001&lng=pt&nrm=iso">,&nbsp;Rio de Janeiro,&nbsp;v. 16,&nbsp;n. 1, p.     7-29,&nbsp;apr. 2010</a>.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p>     <p>This paper discusses the   fabrication of persons and things through legal techniques, taking as reference   a study of Brazilian court rulings involving human beings after death. Analysis   of these decisions reveals that any categorization of an entity as a person or   thing depends on contingent distinctions made in particular situations, which   in turn implies that law is in fact a powerful ontological device creating the   world to which it refers. The contextuality of the person/thing distinction,   partly associated with the complex topography of legal branches and   specialities, allows different degrees of personification and reification to be   identified, along with the possibility of fabricating persons and things by   combining specific attributes from different entities.</p>     <p><b>Key words: </b>Law,   Legal techniques, Dead human beings, Persons and things</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p><b>RESUMO</b></p>     <p>A partir do exame de decis&otilde;es de tribunais   estaduais brasileiros envolvendo a considera&ccedil;&atilde;o jur&iacute;dica do ser humano ap&oacute;s a   morte, este artigo procura identificar diferentes formas pelas quais as   t&eacute;cnicas jur&iacute;dicas constituem e distinguem pessoas e coisas. A an&aacute;lise dos   julgamentos evidencia que a categoriza&ccedil;&atilde;o de um ente como pessoa ou coisa   depende de distin&ccedil;&otilde;es contingentes efetuadas no exame de situa&ccedil;&otilde;es   particulares, o que implica reconhecer o direito como um poderoso operador   ontol&oacute;gico que efetivamente constr&oacute;i o mundo ao qual suas disposi&ccedil;&otilde;es se   referem. Em parte associado &agrave; complexa topografia de ramos e especialidades do   direito, o car&aacute;ter contextual da distin&ccedil;&atilde;o entre pessoas e coisas permite   identificar nas decis&otilde;es judiciais diferentes graus de personifica&ccedil;&atilde;o e   reifica&ccedil;&atilde;o, assim como a possibilidade de constitui&ccedil;&atilde;o de pessoas e coisas pela   articula&ccedil;&atilde;o de atributos de entes distintos.</p>     <p><b>Palavras-chave </b>Direito,   T&eacute;cnicas jur&iacute;dicas, Mortos, Pessoas e coisas</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>The   exploration of how law elaborates personhood in different social universes is   nothing new to anthropology. However the analytic focus usually given to modes   of constructing the person implicitly tends to reaffirm the foundational   principle par excellence of western legal systems: a naturalized and hence   apparently unproblematic boundary between persons and things. Yet a better   comprehension of the ways in which law constitutes the world to which its   provisions apply - particularly in terms of legal techniques of personification   (and reification) - would seem to require that we avoid taking this boundary as   a natural premise, an assumption which immediately restricts the analysis to   the search for particular expressions of a distinction whose existence and   implications remain unquestioned (cf. Pottage 2004).</p>     <p>Setting   out from this alternative approach, my aim is to explore some of the forms in   which persons and things are constituted and distinguished in legal   considerations of the human being after death, taking as our reference point   the judgments of Brazilian state courts. The rulings analyzed here show that,   in the context of legal proceedings, persons and things are neither stable nor   mutually exclusive categories. The categorization of an entity as a person or   thing depends on a contingent distinction mobilized in the examination of   particular situations, reflecting both the existing legislation and values   derived from the social experience of those judging, sedimented in legal   doctrine and jurisprudence in the form of specialized techniques. While the   integrity of the living human organism, with its apparently self-evident   boundaries, is capable of sustaining the symbolic assimilation between the   individual body and the person as a subject during life (Strathern 2005:116),   death renders this equation ambiguous and provokes the emergence of other   assemblages. As we shall see, the disjunction between body and agency enables   legal techniques to establish different degrees of reification of the corpse   and/or its parts, as well as the fabrication of persons through the conjunction   of attributes belonging to distinct entities, animate and inanimate alike.   These variations force us to recognize that "law quite literally <i>makes</i> the difference"; in other words, "techniques of personification and reification   are constitutive rather than declaratory of the ontology upon which they are   based" (Pottage 2004:5 and 9).</p>     <p>The   role of legal techniques in the fabrication of persons and things has been   analyzed in particular in relation to the legislative impacts of the   development of biotechnology (and vice-versa). A range of recent works,   adopting a variety of analytic approaches, have explored processes of   personification and reification associated with organ and tissue transplants,   new assisted reproduction techniques and the patenting of genetic material,   among other areas of contemporary scientific research (see, for example,   Pottage &amp; Mundy 2004, Strathern 2005, Pottage 2007). Though, there is a   significant difference between the legal controversies generated by the   definition of the status of objects and relations linked with the development   of biotechnology and the judicial decisions that inform the analysis proposed   in this article. The former case involves the legal regulation of emerging   realities whose configuration is recognized by the agents themselves as   indissociable from their legal representation. By contrast, the agents involved   in the verdicts examined here, though just as firmly engaged in processes of   ontological fabrication, refer their activity to a tradition (specifically a   legal corpus) and tend to represent their considerations as an attempt to   reconcile the universe of legal categories with the essential attributes of a   world conceived as pre-existent to them.</p>     <p>The   research examined 22 appeal rulings (<i>ac&oacute;rd&atilde;os</i>):<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1"><sup>1</sup></a> eleven from the S&atilde;o Paulo Court of Justice,   eight from the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice and the remaining three from the   Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais and Maranh&atilde;o Courts of Justice. My analysis of   these rulings - which, following the classification of the legal universe   itself involve private and public, civil and criminal questions, as well as   their subdivisions - focuses on two aspects: a) the way in which the object in   dispute, the arguments of the parties and the final decision are formally   constructed; and b) how these legal techniques constitute and differentiate   persons and things.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2"><sup>2</sup></a></p>     <p>I   initially consider cases relating to the unauthorized exhumation of mortal   remains by the administration of the cemetery where they had been buried,   followed by their loss or their removal to the ‘collective tomb' (or ossuary).   Next I turn to cases involving the crimes of disrespecting and unlawfully   removing corpses. Finally I examine - in a preliminary and tentative form,   since I had access to just one ruling of the kind - the question of recognizing   post-mortem personality rights.</p>     <p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>As an   example of the first type of situation, I describe in some detail a ruling from   the 1<sup>st</sup> Civil Law Court of the S&atilde;o Paulo Court of Justice, occurring   in January 2007.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3"><sup>3</sup></a> The   trial involved a lawsuit for material damages and emotional distress<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4"><sup>4</sup></a> caused by the exhumation and loss of the   mortal remains of the plaintiff's mother by the Presidente Prudente municipal   council without prior notification or consent. The trial court verdict ruled in   favour of the claim (in relation to the emotional distress caused; nothing more   was said about material damages) and sentenced the municipality to pay R$3,600   in damages. The municipality appealed, claiming that it had published a notice   in a local newspaper calling for re-registration of graves without any   subsequent manifestation from the interested party. Believing the grave   abandoned, the council had proceeded to exhume the mortal remains. The appeal   court's decision, based on a document of just three pages from the reporting   judge, upheld the original ruling.</p>     <p>Our   first point of interest is discovering how - that is, through which operations   - this outcome was produced. The first step of the process leading to the   court's decision on the municipal council's appeal, as recorded in the ruling   in question, is the evaluation of its conduct <i>within the context of the     trial itself</i>. To some extent, the question of what the municipality did or   did not actually do is irrelevant: what matters is that it ‘failed to prove' in   the court records either its compliance with ‘due legal process' in taking   possession of the grave, or indeed supply evidence of its publication of a   notice.</p>     <p>The   self-contained and self-referential character of legal trials has been   highlighted by various authors.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5"><sup>5</sup></a> For the   purposes of the present analysis, though, it is the second step of the argument   developed by the reporting judge that interests me. By establishing, in and   through the trial, that the municipal council failed to give adequate notice to   the interested party (when it was legally bound to do so), the decision removes   from consideration any alleged abandonment of the grave by the person   responsible and thus the council's tacit argument that the neglect evinced by   the state of the mother's tomb did not justify the claim for damages for   emotional distress. Hence the psychological harm suffered by the plaintiff   emerges as self-evident: it is sufficient to <i>declare </i>emotional stress   for it to exist. This is the conclusive step of the reporting judge's response,   a section of which I reproduce below:</p>     <blockquote>       ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>The     emotional distress arises <i>in re ipsa</i>, since it is impossible to conceal<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6"><sup>6</sup></a> the prejudicial effect on the plaintiff's     moral patrimony caused by the unauthorized exhumation of the mortal remains of     the claimant's mother and their disposal in an unknown location [...] (TJSP,     Ruling no. 01203172/2007).</p> </blockquote>     <p>The   Latin expression <i>in re ipsa</i>, which confers legitimacy to the statement   by implicitly invoking a legal tradition recognized (and claimed) by Brazilian   law,<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7"><sup>7</sup></a> expresses the idea that a determined result   is a necessary and inevitable consequence of a certain conduct, which dispenses   with the need for its proof during the legal proceedings. In the ruling in   question, the presumption that the emotional distress is an immediate outcome   of the council's action is also backed by jurisprudence. The reporting judge   reproduces the summaries of four judgments from the S&atilde;o Paulo and Rio de   Janeiro Courts of Justice relating to similar cases, all awarding damages for   emotional distress to the relatives of people buried in public cemeteries whose   mortal remains had been lost. Only one of the summaries refers to existing   legislation,<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8"><sup>8</sup></a> a fact   which is not mentioned or discussed by the reporting judge here. The decisions   incorporated in the judge's report are valid in themselves: in other words,   their very <i>quality</i> as rulings made prior to the present verdict makes   them incontrovertible, just as the present verdict may form the basis for   future rulings.</p>     <p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>Situations   like the one described above, involving the unauthorized exhumation and loss of   mortal remains, or their unlawful removal to the cemetery's ‘collective grave'   or ossuary, appear to be fairly common judging by the number of trials of this   kind that eventually reach the different state appeal courts. Whatever the   specific circumstances, the decisions usually lead to damages being awarded to   the plaintiff for emotional distress.</p>     <p>In   various cases, the opposing party (as a rule the municipal council responsible   for running the cemetery) contests, in its defence, the interest and diligence   of the plaintiff in tending the deceased relative's grave: that is, they cast doubt   on the authenticity of the emotional suffering allegedly felt by the claimant   following the loss of the mortal remains of a relative whose grave had failed   to receive any kind of care. This line of argument is systematically rejected   by the appeal judges in the verdicts examined here. The bond between the mortal   remains of a close relative and the ‘moral integrity' of the family member   suing for damages does not require any specific <i>behaviour</i> by the latter   capable of demonstrating a concrete concern for the deceased. The bond   existence is assumed and requires no actualization or verification.</p>     <p>The   premise implicit in these judgments seems to be the naturalized - and thus   necessary - bond between what I propose to call the ‘materiality' of the mortal   remains of a close relative and the ‘interiority' of the family member suing   for damages, here understood as his or her intimate constitution as a moral   being, endowed with self-consciousness and intentionality and, for this very   reason, susceptible to the effects of another's actions. This is what allows   the existence of emotional distress (in Portuguese: <i>dano moral</i>, ‘moral   injury') to be considered self-evident in all the verdicts. Put otherwise, in   situations like the one described above, legal technique constructs a specific   modality of person through the dissociation and (re)connection of the levels of   ‘materiality' and ‘interiority' of distinct beings. The relative's claim for   damages is awarded on the basis of the constitution and recognition of his or her   moral ‘interiority,' defined here via the ‘materiality' of the dead relative,   which is absorbed as part of the claimant's own moral substance - in the legal   expression, his or her <i>patrim&ocirc;nio subjetivo</i> (‘subjective patrimony').   This explains why no <i>concrete</i> expression of the emotional bond between   the plaintiff and the dead relative is needed for the injury and damages to be   accepted: the <i>sofrimento moral</i> (‘moral suffering') is an immediate   outcome of this specific form of fabricating the person.</p>     <p>It is   not fortuitous, therefore, that one of the decisive elements of the verdict in   favour of the plaintiff - both in the cases of lost mortal remains and those   relating to their unauthorized transference to a collective grave - is the   impossibility of identification resulting from these actions: in other words,   the impossibility of <i>particularizing</i> the mortal remains, now mixed with   those from other bodies in a collective ossuary. This situation dissolves the   unequivocal conjunction between the interiority of the living person and the   mortal remains of the dead relative, absorbed as part of the former's ‘moral   patrimony.' But while <i>personhood</i> is irremediably affected by the   impossibility of individualizing the deceased's mortal remains,<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9"><sup>9</sup></a> the undifferentiated skeletal remains   deposited in a collective tomb still retain a generically <i>human</i> quality,   such that the distress found to be caused is restricted to the plaintiff.</p>     <p>In some   of the examined verdicts, however, the exceptionality of the circumstances   described in the court records would appear to threaten the ontological   boundary between the human and the non-human, as conceived by the judges. In   these cases, the verdicts show a specific deployment of legal techniques -   which precede and ground the examination of the claims made by the parties - to   carefully reconstitute these frontiers. An example of this is a verdict reached   by the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice in February 2008,<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10"><sup>10</sup></a> which arose from the exhumation of the   mortal remains of the plaintiff's father by the Inha&uacute;ma cemetery   administration. Mixed with the bones of others, the skeletal remains were not   deposited in a collective tomb, as in the cases described above: instead, in   circumstances that remain unexplained, they ended up being dumped at a landfill   in Duque de Caxias municipality.</p>     <p>Converted   into waste, these mortal remains are not only deindividualized: they are   simultaneously deprived of any distinguishable human quality, becoming   (con)fused with an undifferentiated mixture of inert matter.<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11"><sup>11</sup></a> What is perceived in the trial as a factual   and logical scandal, however, is not the potential transformation of persons   into things - indeed, on this point, it could actually be questioned whether   the (humanly) undesirable residues making up the waste even retain the   condition of ‘things,' insofar as the latter category supposes the existence of <i>units</i> that, precisely by being distinguishable from other such units,   enable specific rights to be exercised, notably the right of ownership. By   emphasizing that the landfill is the "location where domestic animals usually   look for food," the sentence of the trial judge accentuates the profoundly   disturbing prospect of the imminent conversion of <i>human mortal remains</i> into a <i>living non-human substance</i>.</p>     <p>Likewise   the appeals court responsible for assessing the plea lodged by the local   council focuses its attention not on the facts of the trial and the emotional   distress felt by the plaintiff - taken to be incontrovertible by the judges -   but on the re-establishment of an ontological boundary that appears to be   seriously threatened by the cemetery administration's negligence.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12"><sup>12</sup></a> By using a peculiar legal technique,   grounded not on positive law but on a subtle shift between mythic time and   historical chronology, the argument contained in the reporting judge's verdict   constructs a human nature as singular as it is immutable. In order to delineate   the essential <i>continuity</i> of care of the dead, taken to be <i>specifically     human</i>, the judge's report turns to the distant example of the ‘monumental   pyramids' built by the ancient Egyptians to "preserve the mortal remains of   their loved ones." He then cites various passages from the Old Testament - that   is, events that not only precede our reckoning of historical time, but are   situated in the atemporal dimension of myth - to conclude that "burying the   dead with dignity is something inherent to human nature and a right that has   been with us since the times of the great patriarchs of Israel." While the   first half of this sentence posits care for the dead as a natural and typically   human concern, the second extracts from this condition an essential right to be   recognized and protected by positive law. Having taken this step, the ruling   can return to the facts of the trial and confirm the compensation awarded in   the initial court decision.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>But   while the <i>existence</i> of the emotional distress is never questioned in   trials relating to the unlawful removal of mortal remains, the judges   nonetheless tend to assess the <i>intensity</i> of this distress when deciding   its financial equivalent: that is, the value of the damages to be awarded. As   well as the doctrine invoked by the appeals judge in question, which asserts   that the amount of compensation should be sufficient to ensure its punitive   character, but not so high as to constitute an excessive advantage to the party   receiving the award, we can identify two more elements that are taken into   consideration in the analyzed cases: the <i>contiguity</i> between the person   claiming damages and the deceased, evaluated in terms of degree of kinship; and   the <i>time interval</i> between the distress caused and claim for   compensation.<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13"><sup>13</sup></a> By way   of illustration, I briefly cite two other verdicts from the Rio de Janeiro   Court of Justice.</p>     <p>In the   first case,<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14"><sup>14</sup></a> the   appeals judge questions the fact that the lawsuit had been filed by the   deceased's mother and sister instead of his wife and children. This fact - or   rather, a differential evaluation of kinship relations that, without basis in   any specific legal provision, appears to privilege voluntarily constituted ties   over connections given by consanguinity - leads him to question the good faith   of the plaintiffs, who he suggests "filed the present lawsuit with the aim, in   my view, [of] enriching themselves at the costs of what could be called a human   error, and that this error had not been observed by the plaintiffs at the time   of the transfer of the mortal remains of the son and brother, who was buried in   a double grave." </p>    <p>In the   second ruling,<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15"><sup>15</sup></a> the   court reduced the value of the damages awarded by the trial court judge,   arguing that since eighteen months had passed between the occurrence of the   injurious act and the filing of the claim for damages, "the emotional distress   caused, <i>self-evidently</i>, was already mitigated" (original emphasis). This   makes explicit the premise that the bond between the living and the dead,   though never completely dissolved, tends to weaken over time, perhaps in   parallel to the decline in the materiality of the corpse itself.</p>     <p>This   latter case also contains other elements worthy of closer attention, since they   allow us to identify a distinct mode of constructing persons and things through   legal techniques. The facts leading to the court case were no different in   general to those found in the verdicts discussed previously. The plaintiff's   ex-spouse<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16"><sup>16</sup></a> had   been buried in S&atilde;o Jo&atilde;o Batista Cemetery, in Rio de Janeiro, run by the Santa   Casa de Miseric&oacute;rdia. At the time of burial, no copy of the contract was   provided nor any information on its duration or on other procedures adopted by   the cemetery administration. Some time later, after visiting the grave and   discovering it had been violated, the plaintiff learnt that the body had been   exhumed and cremated, along with others, at the end of the three-year lease on   the tomb. As in the other cases, the trial court awarded damages for emotional   distress and the contesting party lodged an appeal with the higher court.</p>     <p>The   formal mechanism underlying the argument of the appeals judge remains much the   same: an examination of the facts and allegations made by the parties, as   presented in the course of the trial, and the assessment of them made in light   of existing legislation (as well as previous interpretations of legal texts,   which generally include elements from other domains), a procedure that enables   and grounds the final ruling. After describing the events, the judge   immediately rejects the first allegation made by the Santa Casa de   Miseric&oacute;rdia, namely that the presented evidence failed to show "the consternation   suffered by the plaintiff, [who] had contributed to the facts by being   neglectful and failing to act." As in the previous cases, the verdict of the   appeals judge assumes that "the [emotional] distress arises <i>in re ipsa</i>."   The divergence occurs in the examination of the second allegation made by the   defendant - the strict observance of the relevant legislation by the cemetery   administration - although formally the procedure is much the same as the first   step. In contrast to cases relating to public cemeteries, in this and other   rulings made by the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice involving private funeral   services, the judge's evaluation of the facts is based on the Consumer   Protection Code.<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17"><sup>17</sup></a></p>     <p>Hence,   although the suffering caused to the plaintiffs by the disposal of the mortal   remains of a close relative is not necessarily ignored in these cases, the   emotional distress is characterized - additionally or primarily - by the   failure to supply a contracted service in adequate form, irrespective of its   specific nature.<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18"><sup>18</sup></a> Consequently the application of a very general legal technique - the   determination and later categorization of the facts within the context of the   trial - means that the focus subtly shifts from  the bond between kin to the   contract binding the person who rented the tomb for a determined period and the   cemetery administrator responsible for providing the service. As in the   situations examined above, here too the emphasis is on the plaintiff: the   difference lies in the way in which she emerges from the application of the   legal technique. In the previous cases, the person was construed as a <i>relation     between the attributes of distinct entities</i> - the subjectivity (or ‘moral   interiority') of the plaintiff and the materiality of the mortal remains of his   or her dead relative. But in those cases where the facts of the trial are   judged on the basis of the Consumer Protection Code, the person, defined on the   basis of the contractual relation with a third party, is characterized by the <i>indissociability     between attributes exclusive to her</i>, located on two complementary levels:   the person's inner subjectivity and her physical capacity to act in the outside   world. Consequently the moral integrity of the person, her most inner and   particular dimension, is judged to be affected through a concrete expression of   her agency in the world - the contract. More specifically, the distress is   caused by the disregard for her dignity shown by the contractual partner who   fails to fulfil the contracted obligation. Neither the distress nor the   unfulfilled obligation have any specific connection to the actual nature of the   service or to the relation between the living and the dead. The cemetery   administration's conduct is judged as a failure to comply with the legal duty   to inform the client, obliging the supplier to pay damages.<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19"><sup>19</sup></a></p>     <p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>Although   the trials most frequently involving the dead relate to the unlawful conduct of   cemetery administrations, both public and private, a number of cases concern   violations of graves by third parties or other conducts leading to criminal   prosecution. The Brazilian Penal Code dates from 1940 and contains, as part of   its wide-ranging classification of types of conduct identified as criminal, a   specific chapter on "offences against respect for the dead." Despite the   innumerable amendments made to the code over its seventy-year period in force,   this chapter remains as originally formulated. It should be noted that the law   aims to protect an intangible and collective property, namely the ‘respect'   which the living are presumed to have for the dead, and not the dead directly,   who are considered independent of their relation to the living. The code   stipulates four types of crimes: prevention or disruption of a funeral ceremony   (article 209); violation of a grave (article 210); destruction, unlawful   removal or concealment of a corpse (article 211);  and disrespecting a corpse   or its ashes (article 212).</p>     <p>Since   the definition of these crimes is summary - the law merely lists each type of   offence and stipulates the corresponding penalty<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20"><sup>20</sup></a> - court rulings are heavily based on the   opinions of legal scholars and, through these, a series of categorizations   whose principles lie beyond written law.<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21"><sup>21</sup></a> In the legal definition, although the protected property is <i>intangible and     collective</i> (‘respect for the dead'), the crime is perpetrated and   recognized in the form of an action affecting the <i>materiality</i> of <i>individualized</i> mortal remains. However when we examine the verdicts relating to the offence of   disrespecting a corpse, the act in itself, though recognized as violent - for   example, the post-mortem dismemberment of the corpse - is not enough by itself   to justify its classification under the cited offence. The argument developed   by the legal practitioners focuses on the subjective intention of the agent,   the outcome envisaged at the moment of the action. By concentrating on agents   and on the connection between their action in the world and their inner state,   legal technique produces a <i>person</i> constituted by the indissociability   between ‘inner' and ‘outer' (intentionality and agency in the world), as   contained in the examples cited above. Simultaneously, though, it also implies   the constitution of the corpse as a <i>thing</i>, an entity that merely suffers   the action of another. This legal move can be observed especially in those   cases in which the trial fails to establish the defendant's specific intention   to offend or disrespect.</p>     <p>The   condition of being a thing involves gradations, though, depending on the   context and mode in which particular facts are evaluated. As my first example,   I turn to a ruling from the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice.<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22"><sup>22</sup></a> In brief, the case related to an event   occurring in the municipality of Santa Cruz do Sul: a 34-year old bricklayer   killed his neighbour by clubbing him to death on the pavement in front of their   homes. He stowed the body in the trunk of his car and drove to his parents'   smallholding in the rural area of the municipality. There, assisted by his   older brother, he placed the corpse in a hole and burnt it with petrol. The   burial site was then covered with earth and straw.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>The   younger brother was arrested and charged with aggravated murder. Both brothers   were also charged with committing the offences listed in articles 211 and 212   of the Penal Code, namely: destroying, stealing or concealing a corpse or part   of it; and disrespecting a corpse or its ashes. The defence's appeal, the   object of the ruling to which I refer, looked to contest the charge of   disrespecting the corpse. Here my interest is in exploring how the reporting   judge examined and assessed the facts, finding in favour of the defence.</p>     <p>Since   the Penal Code is limited to stipulating crimes against ‘respect for the dead,'   the judge's first step was to define the semantic field covered by the   expression ‘to vilipend a corpse' (in Portuguese, <i>vilip&ecirc;ndio a cad&aacute;ver</i>).   For this the judge turns to expert opinion: the interpretation of reputed legal   commentators. His decision draws on the works of three scholars in particular.   We can observe the same form of categorization as in the passages cited above.   The first step is to establish the general meaning of the term <i>vilipend</i>,   which involves juxtaposing the verb with others whose meaning implicitly   appears to be better known or less open to dispute: vilipend means to "vilify,   insult, treat with disdain." This list of synonyms, however, is still located   at a generic and imprecise level: the interpretation is circular, insufficient   for the examination of concrete cases.</p>     <p>The   next step, therefore, is to define the kinds of actions corresponding to this   category. The judge notes that vilipending "can be practiced through words,   writing or gestures." But a further step is needed: what specific content do   these different forms of expression require for the crime to be identified as   such? In response, the judge lists a series of acts that, more than exemplify,   effectively <i>constitute</i> the very category of which they are examples:   "remove the corpse's clothing, spit on it, cut off a member (<i>in order to     mock</i>), acts of necrophilia, the use of insulting words, offensive gestures,   defiling the corpse" (original emphasis).</p>     <p>The   different legal scholars cited by the judge reproduce the same expressions   almost verbatim, meaning that it is primarily through this repetition that an   initially vague perception based on common sense is transformed into a solid   technical exegesis that can be invoked with authority in the judgment of a   defendant's conduct. Consequently, in the case to which I refer here, the   reporting judge was able to conclude that the "evidence in the court records   does not register any kind of insult or vilification of the victim's corpse and   the accusation does not indicate any circumstance of this kind." The defence's   appeal was successful.</p>     <p>An   examination of another case, this time judged by the Maranh&atilde;o Court of Justice,<a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23"><sup>23</sup></a> allows us to explore this topic a little   further. At a factual level, there is no similarity between the two situations:   while the first case involves murder, this second case concerns the managing   partner of a cemetery that proceeded to exhume mortal remains following   non-payment of instalments relating to lease of the tombs. For our present   purposes there is no need to describe the other details of the trial. Suffice   to note that here too the appeal court judge responsible for examining the case   turns to legal doctrine to find in favour of the defendant. Below I reproduce a   section from her decision which provides a clearer illustration of the   importance given to the <i>subjective disposition</i> of the defendant - the   determination of which can obviously only be conjectural and speculative - in   deciding whether an action constitutes a crime against the ‘respect for the   dead.' </p>    <blockquote>       <p>[The]     procedure executed by the defendant makes clear that his purpose in exhuming     the mortal remains, in the case of defaults on payment, was to enforce the     clauses of the contract rather than offend the feeling of piety for the dead,     which would constitute the offence set out in article 210 of the Penal Code     [violation of a grave], which only applies when the agent's conduct embodies     the subjective element of intent, that is, the deliberate and conscious wish to     violate or desecrate graves or mortal remains (TJMA, Habeas Corpus 16318/2000).</p> </blockquote>     <p>Considering   the importance assumed by the voices of legal scholars in the above two cases,   as well as the nature of their arguments, it can be suggested, perhaps, that   the interpretation of the articles of the Penal Code dealing with crimes   against ‘respect for the dead' allow - and maybe even demand, given that the   legal protection concerns an intangible value, and that the types of offence   that express its violation are stipulated in a generic and imprecise form - the   introduction of classificatory parameters from outside the legal universe,   deriving from the commentators and their own social experience. In this way,   disrespect and insult are conceived in legal doctrine - and consequently in   jurisprudence - to be the result of a conscious subjective disposition: an   accidental offence is no offence at all.</p>     <p>What   are the effects of this move in terms of processes of personification and   reification? It can be seen that the focus is entirely on the agent of the   crime: the process concentrates on establishing<i> a posteriori</i> his or her   intentions prior to and during the action (a step conceived as unproblematic in   the context of the trial), which means that legal technique constitutes the   defendant as a person possessing an intentionality that is manifested   concretely in his or her agency in the world. But the accent falls emphatically   on the inner level: it is the will that first and foremost defines the person.   Correlatively, we can note the reification of the object of the action, that   is, the corpse lacking will and agency. Although it is admitted in the trials   that a special kind of thing is involved, the argument pursued by the judges   indicates that the corpse's value is a question to be decided among the living:   an action affecting the corpse is not enough to constitute the crime of   disrespecting the dead. To reach this decision, legal technique looks to place   in perspective the internal and subjective level of the intentionality of the   alleged author of the crime and the dispositions equally internal to the   collectivity (the feeling of respect for the dead), objectified in the Penal Code.   This results in an accentuation of the discontinuity between the living and the   dead, based on the distribution of <i>exclusive</i> qualities: each pole is   defined by the absence or fading of the attribute crucial to the constitution   of the opposite pole.</p>     <p>However   the ontological boundary between persons and things drawn by legal technique is   neither stable, nor necessarily coincides with the distinction between the   living and the dead. Depending on the context, the deceased may be considered   even more pronouncedly thing-like. Or, inversely, the attribution to the human   being of an interiority that subsists after death may radically dissolve the   boundary between the living and the dead and, at the same time, redefine the   distinction between persons and things based on other attributes.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>This   constitution of the dead human being as a thing becomes even clearer in trials   relating to the violation of graves and the removal of parts of the corpse <sup> </sup>-   especially gold dental work - for later commercialization. In the two rulings   of this kind that I was able to access in full, both from the S&atilde;o Paulo Court   of Justice,<a href="#_edn24" name="_ednref24"><sup>24</sup></a> the   defendants were initially accused of the crimes of violating a grave and theft   (articles 210 and 155 of the Penal Code, respectively). In both cases, the   defence's appeals contesting the charge of theft, the penalty for which varies   between two and eight years imprisonment, were successful. The legal debate on   the correct classification of the facts simultaneously defines the ontological   status of the corpse. In both appeals, the verdict depends on two steps: the   preliminary definition of what constitutes theft, followed by the comparison   between this definition and the details of the trial.</p>     <p>Reading   the Penal Code, the definition of theft seems unproblematic: theft is a crime   against property, which presupposes injury to the patrimony or property of a <i>person</i> - in Brazilian law, either a <i>pessoa f&iacute;sica</i> (a physical person: an   individual) or a <i>pessoa jur&iacute;dica</i> (legal person: a company or entity) --   in order to be defined as such. But while the definition seems precise, its   application is controversial: can the corpse be the object of such a crime?   Beginning with a vague reference to the tradition of Roman law through the use   of Latin expressions enshrined in the legal universe, the judges turn to more   recent legal doctrine to establish that:</p>     <blockquote>       <p>[The]     corpse cannot be a material object of theft, as a general rule, nor its parts,     since it does not constitute patrimony in the economic sense, it does not     belong to a third party. It should not be said that it belongs to the family,     that it is something that forms part of the patrimony of the deceased's heirs     and that the latter would thus be the victims of the crime of theft. It would     be risible to consider this hypothesis. Were this the case, the corpse would     always have to be included in an inventory of assets (TJSP, Appeal     53.500-3/1987 — <i>Revista dos Tribunais </i>619/291).</p> </blockquote>     <p>Hence   neither legal doctrine nor the court records consider the possibility of   defining the theft of a dental prosthesis as an act perpetrated against the <i>person     of the deceased</i> him or herself, whose legal representation could be   provided by a family member. This hypothesis would imply not only the legal   assimilation of inanimate human bodies and living persons, it would also   engender the difficult problem of recognizing property rights over parts of the   human body, even where this involves the subject's rights over his or her own   body. In a move that evokes the notion of ‘fabrication by default' formulated   by Strathern (2005:116), these questions are deliberately avoided by   attributing to the corpse - in an uncontroversial form in this context - the   status of a thing.<a href="#_edn25" name="_ednref25"><sup>25</sup></a> But   while legal technique constitutes the corpse as a thing, it also attributes it   with the status of a special type of thing. It amounts to a <i>res extra     commercium</i>: in other words, it cannot be someone's property and thereby be   introduced into the flow of economic transactions. As a result of this move,   which skilfully continues to avoid the more troublesome implications of   converting a person into a thing, it becomes impossible for the corpse to   become the <i>object</i> of theft.</p>     <p>However,   the averred non-commerciality of human mortal remains is situational rather   than absolute. The rulings themselves are concerned with distinguishing the   situations under analysis from those in which a corpse can legally constitute   the property of third parties, a case in which it becomes a ‘common thing' able   to be stolen. According to the legal doctrine cited by the judges, this   applies, for example, to archaeological findings or cases where a corpse has   been donated to a museum or scientific institute for study or display. Under   these conditions, the unauthorized removal of a corpse or its parts constitutes   a crime against property that can be classified as theft. In other words, the   legal relation of ownership equalizes the things capable of comprising   someone's property and thus removes from the human corpse the specificity that   in other situations continues to differentiate it from other objects. In the   cases mentioned above, meanwhile, the recourse to the notion of <i>res extra     commercium </i>enables the obvious intention of the defendants to sell the gold   dental prostheses extracted from the corpses to be considered irrelevant to the   classification of these actions as theft. In other words, by employing the   notion of property, legal technique establishes varying degrees of reification   of human substance.</p>     <p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>Conversely,   other situations can be encountered in which the dead human being is still   conceived to possess interiority, will and honour, although the manifestation   of this will necessarily precedes death, meaning that the defence of the dead   person's honour and memory must be concretely undertaken by third parties.   Different rulings analyzed in this study mention the desires manifested by the   deceased while alive, a topic that poses no real problems from the viewpoint of   legal practice, since civil law covers in detail elements such as the testament   and other dispositions to be carried out after the death of the person in   question, establishing the conditions for their execution or legal   representation. Yet it is important to note that the recognition of the   dispositions established (in life) by the dead person also forms the step   leading to the extinction of this now bodiless personality. The will, as an   attribute constitutive of the person, is manifested posthumously in an   imperative form, but just once and forever.</p>     <p>Other   possibilities open up, though, when we turn to the legal considerations   surrounding the so-called rights of the personality, understood as those rights   inherent to the person and his or her dignity, set out in article 5 of the 1988   Federal Constitution and covered in a separate chapter of the 2002 Civil Code   (articles 11 to 21). The affirmation of the rights of honour, image and   intimacy, among others, immediately poses a new question: does this legal   provision extend to the dead too? Can the dead be recognized to maintain   personality rights, given that the legislation defines these rights as both   unrenounceable and <i>non-transferable</i>?<a href="#_edn26" name="_ednref26"><sup>26</sup></a></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>At   first sight, the recent debate in legal scholarship on the question of   post-mortem personality rights allows us to distinguish two general positions   (at least) that, by legally setting out the inability of the deceased to   manifest him or herself directly, express different modes of fabricating   persons and things. The first position, perhaps the most common, claims that   the personality ceases at death: even if the contrary were recognizable, the   practical effects of this recognition would be null due to the "extinction of   any legal capacity" (Amaral 2000:221), that is, the effective impossibility of   the deceased manifesting his or her will. From this perspective, personhood is   founded on the indissociability between (subjective) interiority and (material)   agency. Consequently legal personality can only correspond to the living human   person, possessing an interiority to be legally protected, but also the   condition for concretely exercising the rights that emanate from this   interiority. In other words, legal personality is taken to be unable to exist   without ‘legal capacity;' biological existence and legal existence must   coincide.</p>     <p>The   second approach to this issue argues that article 12 of the new Civil Code,<a href="#_edn27" name="_ednref27"><sup>27</sup></a> which addresses the protection of   personality rights, recognizes their continuation after death. Here the   impossibility of a dead person directly claiming legal protection of his or her   rights is not deemed to be an obstacle, since the legal text itself identifies   the spouse or close kin as legitimate representatives of the dead person in   legal proceedings. Also according to this view, article 20 of the Civil Code,   which concerns the protection of the person's image, also implies recognition   of the rights of the deceased (see, for example, Tartuce 2005). In more general   terms, the entities composing the legal universe are understood not to depend   on, nor necessarily correspond to, the projection of something outside of this   universe - and this is what enables legal technique to produce a maximum   gradient of personification. Recognition of the person dispenses not only with   the materiality of the body, but also an inner faculty capable of becoming   actualized in the world: it is enough for the person to exist in the context of   the process.<a href="#_edn28" name="_ednref28"><sup>28</sup></a></p>     <p>In this   approach, the legal definition of a <i>thing</i> is also altered. According to   an understanding that has become firmly established among legal scholars,   ‘human creativity' is defined as an <i>extrapatrimonial property</i>, whose   ownership cannot be transferred to another subject - as Strathern (2005:154)   observes, the opposite would imply admitting property rights over people.   However the exteriorization of the generative capacity of the intellect in an   invention or a work of art can unproblematically constitute <i>a material </i>and<i> owned (patrimonial) thing </i>(cf. Gediel 2000). Based on this specification   made by legal technique, the <i>person</i> is seen to contain -or to manifest   as - elements with different degrees of alienability. The <i>properties</i> <i>of     the personality </i>form the inalienable nucleus of the person and cannot be   disposed of, even at the will of the person him or herself. The person's core   is thus the limit not only of the market but also of his or her own will:   inalienable and indisposable, it is distinguished from the manifestation of its   own faculties in the world in the form of <i>things</i> with a patrimonial   value, which can indeed figure in economic transactions and are appropriable by   other subjects without implying a diminution of the creative capacity from   which they originate.</p>     <p align="center"><b>***</b></p>     <p>The   examples explored in this essay reveal that legal technique does not work, as   sometimes presumed, by matching a set of legal categories with entities whose   ontological status is stable and independent of the court proceedings. On the   contrary, the appeal rulings analyzed here demonstrate the contextual   constitution of the entities populating the trials as persons and/or things through   a contingent distribution of distinct attributes that either postulates an   identity between the person (as a legal subject) and the <i>human being</i>, or   distances itself from natural law, constituting persons and things without   necessarily affirming any correspondence with qualities taken as innate or   natural.<a href="#_edn29" name="_ednref29"><sup>29</sup></a> The   coexistence of these distinct perspectives leads firstly to recognizing law as   a powerful ontological device that effectively constructs the world to which   its provisions refer. But while this is a necessary step to a better   understanding of the processes of personification and reification found in the   legal universe, the discussion has also shown the importance of analyzing the   strong segmentation existing within this universe. Even the analysis of a small   sample of court rulings shows that it is not enough to speak of the division   between persons and things made by modern western law, ignoring the complex   topography of the different branches of law and their institutional   expressions. As Hermitte observes, each of these instances works with the   objects that it apprehends in its own way, not only without searching for   coherence with the other instances but, on the contrary, following a logic of increasing   autonomization whose consequences might include, for example, the constitution   of ‘hybrid objects,' intermediary categories between things and persons   (Hermitte 1998:18 and 24).</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="verdana" size="3"><b>Bibliography</b></font></p>     <p>ABREU, Luiz E. 2008. "Tradi&ccedil;&atilde;o,   direito e pol&iacute;tica." Paper presented at the 26<sup>th</sup> Brazilian   Anthropology Meeting, Workgroup Anthropology of the State. Porto   Seguro (BA), 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> June 2008. Mimeograph.</p>     <!-- ref --><p>AMARAL, Francisco. 2000. <i>Direito Civil:   Introdu&ccedil;&atilde;o</i>. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.    </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>BRASIL . Brazilian   Civil Code. Law no. 10.406, dated 10/01/2002.</p>     <p>___. Brazilian Civil Code. Law   no. 3.071, dated 01/01/1916.</p>     <p>___. Constitution of the   Federal Republic of Brazil, dated 05/10/1988.</p>     <p>___. Consumer Protection Code.   Law no. 8.078, dated 11/09/1990.</p>     <p>___. Brazilian Penal Code.   Decree Law no. 2.848, dated 07/12/1940.</p>     <p>GALV&Atilde;O, Vin&iacute;cius Queiroz. 2008. "Associa&ccedil;&atilde;o quer   espiritualizar o judici&aacute;rio." <i>Folha de S&atilde;o Paulo</i>, 19<sup>th</sup> May,   p. C1.</p>     <p>GEDIEL, Jos&eacute; Ant&ocirc;nio Peres. 2000. "Tecnoci&ecirc;ncia,   dissocia&ccedil;&atilde;o e patrimonializa&ccedil;&atilde;o jur&iacute;dica do corpo humano." In: L. E. Fachin   (ed.), <i>Repensando</i> <i>fundamentos do direito civil brasileiro     contempor&acirc;neo</i>. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar. pp. 57-85. </p>     <!-- ref --><p>HERMITTE, Marie-Ang&egrave;le. 1998. "Le droit est un   autre monde." <i>Enqu&ecirc;te</i>, VII:17-37.    </p>     <!-- ref --><p>LATOUR, Bruno. 2004a. <i>La fabrique du   droit: une ethnographie du Conseil d'&Eacute;tat</i>. Paris: La D&eacute;couverte.     </p>     <p>___. 2004b. "Scientific objects   and legal objectivity." In: A. Pottage &amp; M. Mundy (eds.), <i>Law,     anthropology, and the constitution of the social</i>. Cambridge:   Cambridge University Press. pp. 73-114.</p>     <p>MEZAROBBA, Glenda Lorena. 2008. O pre&ccedil;o do   esquecimento: as repara&ccedil;&otilde;es pagas &agrave;s v&iacute;timas do regime militar (uma compara&ccedil;&atilde;o   entre Brasil, Argentina e Chile). Ph.D. thesis, University   of S&atilde;o Paulo.</p>     <!-- ref --><p>MUNDY, Martha; POTTAGE, Alain (eds.).   2004. <i>Law, anthropology, and the</i> <i>constitution of the social</i>.   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    </p>     <p>POTTAGE, Alain. 2004.   "Introduction: the fabrication of persons and things." In: A. Pottage &amp; M.   Mundy (eds.), <i>Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social</i>.   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-39.</p>     <!-- ref --><p>___.2007. "The socio-legal   implications of the new biotechnologies." <i>Annual Review of Law and Social   Science</i>, III:321-344.    </p>     <!-- ref --><p>STRATHERN, Marilyn. 2005. <i>Kinship,   law and the unexpected</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>TARTUCE, Fl&aacute;vio. 2005.   "Os direitos da personalidade no novo C&oacute;digo Civil." Available   at <a href="http://www.mundojuridico.adv.br" target="_blank">http://www.mundojuridico.adv.br</a>. Accessed on 16/05/2008.</p>     <p>THOMAS, Yan. 2004. "<i>Res   Religiosae</i>: on the categories of religion and commerce in Roman law." In:   A. Pottage and M. Mundy (eds.), <i>Law, anthropology,</i> <i>and the     constitution of the social</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University   Press. pp. 40-72.</p>     <!-- ref --><p>VIANNA, Luiz Werneck. 1996. "Poder judici&aacute;rio,   ‘positiva&ccedil;&atilde;o do direito natural' e pol&iacute;tica." <i>Estudos Hist&oacute;ricos</i>,   XVIII:1-20 (<a href="www.cpdoc.fgv.br/revista/arq/195.pdf" target="_blank">www.cpdoc.fgv.br/revista/arq/195.pdf</a>).    </p>     <p>ZELIZER, Viviana. 2005.   "Intimit&eacute; et &eacute;conomie." <i>Terrain </i>[en     ligne] 45, uploaded 15 September 2009. Available at     <a href="http://terrain.revues.org/index3512.html" target="_blank">http://terrain.revues.org/index3512.html</a>. Accessed on 15/04/2010.</p>      <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="verdana" size="3"><b>Notes</b></font></p>     <p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Earlier versions of this text were presented at the   Anthropology of the State Workgroup at the 26<sup>th</sup> Brazilian   Anthropology Meeting   (Porto Seguro, June 2008) and at the seminar Anthropology of the State:   ethnography and theory, hosted by the UFPR Department of Anthropology (Curitiba, November 2008). My special thanks to Luiz Eduardo Abreu for his comments and   suggests on these two occasions. I also thank the anonymous reviewer of Mana,   whose observations enabled me to develop the analysis proposed here.    <br>   <a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">1</a> An <i>ac&oacute;rd&atilde;o </i>is a judicial decision reached in a higher (appeal) court. As established   in Brazil's Civil Trial Law (articles 458 and 563), this ruling is composed of   four essential elements: a <i>summary,</i> a <i>report, </i>a <i>motivation </i>(or <i>ground</i>) and a <i>decision</i>. The <i>summary </i>provides a r&eacute;sum&eacute; of   the ruling, summarizing the essential aspects of the case. The <i>report </i>describes   the facts of the trial and the law being discussed by the parties. The <i>motivation </i>or <i>ground</i>, which derives from the analysis made by the judges on the   factual and legal questions set forth in the report, forms the bases for the   decision by the judicial authority. The <i>decision</i>, the final part of the   ruling, sets out the conclusion reached from the report and the motivation,   that is, the court's final decision.    <br>   <a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">2</a> The majority of the rulings (15) were   made in the period from 2005 to 2008. However three of the consulted judgments   took place in the years 1986 and 1987 (prior to the current Constitution) and   another three in 2000 and 2001 (after the current Constitution but prior to the   new Civil Code).    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br>   <a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">3</a> Court Records for Civil Appeal no.   259.073.5/5-00, Ruling no. 01203172. Available at:   <a href="http://www.tj.sp.gov.br/consulta/Acordaos.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.tj.sp.gov.br/consulta/Acordaos.aspx</a>. Consulted on 28/01/2008.    <br>   <a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">4</a> TN: In Portuguese: <i>danos     materiais </i>and <i>danos morais</i>, literally ‘material harm' and ‘moral harm.'    <br> <a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">5</a> See, for example, Hermitte (1998) and Latour (2004a and 2004b).    <br> <a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">6</a> TN: The phrase used by the   reporting judge here is <i>sendo inescond&iacute;vel</i>: literally, ‘it being   inconcealable.'    <br>   <a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">7</a> On the incorporation of the Roman legal   tradition by Brazilian law, see Abreu (2008).    <br> <a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">8</a> Namely article 159 of the Civil Code of   1916: "Someone who through their action or deliberate omission, negligence, or   imprudence, violates the rights of or causes harm to another, is obliged to   compensate for the injury. Ascertainment of guilt and assessment of   responsibility are regulated by the provisions of this Code, articles 1.518 to   1.532 and 1.537 to 1.553."    <br> <a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9">9</a> On this point we can note a similarity   with the mid-90s debate cited by Strathern (2005:117) on European legislation   relating to biotechnology. According to the author, one of the arguments raised   during the period backed the possibility of patenting human body parts, so long   as they could no longer be linked to specific individuals.    <br> <a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10">10</a> Civil Appeal 2007.001.57339. Judgment   made by the 13<sup>th</sup> Civil Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro Court of   Justice on 13 February 2008. Available at www.tj.rj.gov.br. Consulted on   17/05/2008.    <br> <a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11">11</a> The identification of the remains of the   plaintiff's father only became possible after the recovery of a pacemaker, a   non-human part of the body, identifiable by a serial number imprinted by the   manufacturer.    <br> <a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12">12</a> We can also note the judges' perception   of an improper conjunction between humanity and animality in another ruling,   where it was deemed to be admissible only in the universe of fiction (in   passing it is worth noting the frequent allusions to literature and/or cinema   in the remarks of the judges, as well as in legal scholarship, where they   comprise a specific technique of argumentation). Here I reproduce a brief   passage from the decision of the reporting judge, accepted unanimously: "The   body of the plaintiff's mother was buried in a <i>locale that seems more like     an animal cemetery</i>, with bones scattered everywhere, densely overgrown and   displaying a complete lack of hygiene, more reminiscent of a <i>horror film</i>"   (my italics). Civil Appeal no. 2006.001.63792. Ruling made by the 13<sup>th</sup> Civil Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice on 14 March 2007. Available   at www.tj.rj.gov.br. Consulted on 17/05/2008.    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br> <a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13">13</a> The assessment of emotional distress   raises a wide range of questions - spanning from the plaintiffs' legal standing   and the nature of the indemnifiable losses to the adequate financial   compensation for the injury suffered - and distinct legal paths depending on   the political-juridical context and the specific case under trial. On this   point see, for example, the different criteria used for compensating relatives   of people who ‘disappeared' during periods of political repression in Brazil,   Argentina and Chile (Mezarobba 2008) and the disputes involved in the damages   paid to relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and   Pentagon in the United States (Zelizer 2005).    <br> <a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14">14</a> Civil Appeal 2008.001.05163. Ruling by   the 6<sup>th</sup> Civil Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice   on 2 April 2008. Available at www.tj.rj.gov.br. Consulted on 17/05/2008.    <br> <a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15">15</a> Civil Appeal 2007.001.54575. Ruling by   the 16<sup>th</sup> Civil Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice   on 11 March 2008. Available at www.tj.rj.gov.br. Consulted on 19/03/2008.    <br> <a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16">16</a> The expression ‘ex-spouse' is used in   the appeal ruling to describe the bond between the plaintiff and the deceased.   It remains unclear whether the qualification ‘ex' refers to the husband's death   or whether the couple had already separated prior to this event.    <br> <a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17">17</a> The Consumer Protection Code (Law no.   8.078/90) applies indifferently to public and private agents. In the appeal   rulings examined here, however, there seems to be a certain reluctance on the   part of the courts to cite the CPC when one of the parties is a public agent.   In most cases the judges opt to frame the facts legally on the basis of the   Constitution (article 37, § 6: "Public legal entities and private legal   entities rendering public services shall be liable for damages that any of   their agents, acting as such, cause to third parties, ensuring the right of   recourse against the liable agent in cases of malice or fault") and/or on the   Civil Code (article 43: "Public legal entities are civilly responsible for the   actions of their agents who in this capacity cause harm to the third parties,   subject to recourse against those causing the injury, if guilt or malice on   their part is established").    <br> <a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18">18</a> The Consumer Protection Code stipulates   that unsatisfactory provision of a service renders the provider liable for   compensation to the consumer not only for material losses, but also emotional   distress (cf. article 6, VI; article 14 and articles 20 to 25). In legal   doctrine and jurisprudence alike, emotional distress has been recognized as an   inevitable outcome of the frustration of the consumer's expectations.    <br> <a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19">19</a> Articles 6 and 14 of the Consumer   Protection Code, respectively. Only in one of the examined rulings was there a   concern to demonstrate the applicability of the CPC to the facts of the case.   In the other rulings, it was deemed sufficient to declare the legal framing of   the case as the unsatisfactory provision of a service, without explicit mention   of legal doctrine or  jurisprudence.    <br> <a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20">20</a> Preventing or disrupting a funeral   ceremony (article 209): detention from one month to a year, or a fine;   Violation of a grave (article 210), and Destruction, theft or concealment of a   corpse (article 211): imprisonment of one to three years and a fine; Disrespecting   the corpse or its ashes (article 212): detention of one to three years and a   fine. In concrete terms, the difference between imprisonment and detention   functions primarily as a criterion for determining how sentences will be   carried out. If imprisonment is stipulated, the sentence may be realized in a   closed, semi-open or open regime. In the case of detention, however, closed   regimes are seldom stipulated by the judge, save in exceptional circumstances.    <br> <a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21">21</a> I did not encounter a single trial   referring to preventing or disrupting a funeral ceremony, a category of crime   that can be traced back to pre-Christian Roman law: on this topic, see the   excellent analysis by Yan Thomas (2004). In the following considerations,   therefore, I stick to the other crimes relating to the dead as defined by the   Brazilian Penal Code.    <br> <a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22">22</a> Criminal Appeal 70001.799.402. Ruling of   the 1<sup>st</sup> Criminal Court of the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice on   21 February 2001. <i>Revista     dos Tribunais </i>794/674.   Consulted online on 17/05/2008 (www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline).    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br> <a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23">23</a> Habeas Corpus 16318/2000. Ruling by the   Special Recess Court of the Maranh&atilde;o Court of Justice on 9 January 2001. <i>Revista dos Tribunais </i>790/656. Consulted   online on 17/05/2008 (www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline).    <br> <a href="#_ednref24" name="_edn24">24</a> Respectively: Appeal 41.767-3, judged by   the 3<sup>rd</sup> Criminal Court of the S&atilde;o Paulo Court of Justice on 10 March   1986 (<i>Revista dos Tribunais</i> 608/305, consulted online on 17/05/2008 -   <a href="http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline" target="_blank">http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline</a>); and Appeal 53.500-3, judged by the 1<sup>st</sup> Criminal Court of the S&atilde;o Paulo Court of Justice on 18 May 1987 (<i>Revista dos     Tribunais </i>619/291, consulted online on 17/05/2008 -   <a href="http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline" target="_blank">http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline</a>).    <br> <a href="#_ednref25" name="_edn25">25</a> The expression ‘fabrication by default'   describes an outcome which is produced indirectly, by implication, when the law   deliberately avoids dealing with (and deciding on) certain particularly   problematic questions. One example examined by Strathern is the treatment given   to human organs and tissues in British law. The emphasis on the establishment   of legal mechanisms of prior consent for the removal and later use of these   elements (which continue to be referred to, significantly, as body ‘parts')   makes it possible to avoid deciding whether organs and tissues, once separated   from the human body, constitute (entire) ‘things' and, consequently, whether   they would be subject to the same legal regime as other things, particularly   their inclusion in someone's economic property and thus their potential   commercialization (Strathern 2005:16-18).    <br> <a href="#_ednref26" name="_edn26">26</a> I encountered just one ruling referring   to these kinds of questions. This case involved the appeal presented to the Rio   de Janeiro Court of Justice by the makers of the film <i>Luz del Fuego </i>- a   semi-fictionalized biography of Dora Vivacqua, an actress and dancer who went   by the stage name Luz del Fuego, famous in the 1950s for performing in scant   clothing with her body wrapped around by a boa constrictor. The authors of the   appeal requested the annulment of the sentence passed down by the trial court,   which had banned exhibition of the film following a lawsuit filed by the   actress's sister. The ruling, dating from 1986, was made prior to the current   Federal Constitution and the new Civil Code. Nonetheless, the trial and appeal   court judges based their rulings on the notion of ‘personality rights,' the   recognition of which is extended, in the (then) absence of a ‘specific ruling'   in Brazilian legislation, as a necessary outcome of the very "evolution of the   science of law." As a result, the ban on the film was maintained on the grounds   of recognizing the possibility of harm to the personality rights of a dead   individual. But once recognized, these rights were immediately converted into a   ‘new right' belonging to third parties affected by the harmful action, namely   the relatives of the victim. In sum, the injury is recognized, but not the   post-mortem ownership of personality rights. Appeal 39.193/86 (declaratory   embargo). Ruling by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Civil Court of the Rio de Janeiro Court   of Justice on 17/12/1985 and 24/06/1986 (<i>Revista dos Tribunais </i>619/175,   consulted online on 17/05/2008 - <a href="http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline" target="_blank">http://www.rt.com.br/JurisOnline</a>).    <br> <a href="#_ednref27" name="_edn27">27</a> Civil Code - Article 12. "Cessation of   the threat or injury to the personality right may be demanded and compensation   for losses and damages claimed, without prejudice to other sanctions   established by law. Sole paragraph. Insofar as it concerns a deceased person,   the surviving spouse or any direct relative or collateral relative to the   fourth degree may legitimately demand the legal action set forth in this   article."    <br> <a href="#_ednref28" name="_edn28">28</a> The emergence of entities like Abrame   (Brazilian Association of Spiritist Judges) - whose membership, according to a   report by the <i>Folha de S&atilde;o Paulo</i> newspaper, includes around seven   hundred trial judges, appeals court judges and higher court judges - has also   contributed to relativizing the boundary between life and death in terms of the   legal recognition of the manifestation of will, since, from a spiritist point   of view, for example, the materiality of the body is not a necessary condition   for the existence of the <i>person</i> or for the exercise of his or her legal   capacity. The report reproduces an excerpt from an interview with the auxiliary   judge of the presidency of the National Council of Justice, Alexandre Azevedo,   in which he asserts: "I don't see any difference between a declaration made by   myself or yourself and a mediumistic declaration which has been psychographed   by someone" (Galv&atilde;o 2008).    <br> <a href="#_ednref29" name="_edn29">29</a> The tension between these two models can   be observed in the legal framework itself. The notion of personhood developed   in the Civil Code dispenses with the affirmation of an ontological correspondence   between legal entities and those existing outside this universe. An example of   this is the recognition of bodiless persons - <i>pessoas jur&iacute;dicas</i>, ‘legal   persons,' that is companies and other legal entities - and, inversely, the   consideration of the human body as a thing that can become the object of legal   relations, limited only to its commercialization. The Federal Constitution, on   the other hand, which in its preamble affirms legal principles of absolute   legitimacy, logically anterior and ethically superior to formal law and state   action, forms part of a wider tendency in modern constitutionalism to revive   legal approaches based on natural law, in opposition to the so-called legal   positivism predominant until the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century (on this topic,   see Vianna 1996).</p> </font>      ]]></body><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="confpro">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ABREU]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Luiz E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA["Tradição, direito e política"]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<conf-name><![CDATA[26 Reunião Brasileira de Antropologia]]></conf-name>
<conf-date>01 a 04 de junho de 2008</conf-date>
<conf-loc>Porto Seguro BA</conf-loc>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Mimeo ]]></publisher-loc>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[AMARAL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Francisco]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Direito Civil: Introdução]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[^eRio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Renovar]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>BRASIL</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Código Civil Brasileiro: Lei nº 10.406]]></source>
<year>10/0</year>
<month>1/</month>
<day>20</day>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>BRASIL</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Código Civil Brasileiro: Lei nº 3.071]]></source>
<year>01/0</year>
<month>1/</month>
<day>19</day>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>BRASIL</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil]]></source>
<year>05/1</year>
<month>0/</month>
<day>19</day>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>BRASIL</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Código de Defesa do Consumidor: Lei nº 8.078]]></source>
<year>11/0</year>
<month>9/</month>
<day>19</day>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>BRASIL</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Código Penal Brasileiro: Decreto-Lei nº 2.848]]></source>
<year>07/1</year>
<month>2/</month>
<day>19</day>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[GALVÃO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Vinícius Queiroz]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA["Associação quer espiritualizar o judiciário"]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Folha de S. Paulo]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<month>19</month>
<day> d</day>
<page-range>C1</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[GEDIEL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[José Antônio Peres]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA["Tecnociência, dissociação e patrimonialização jurídica do corpo humano"]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fachin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Repensando fundamentos do direito civil brasileiro contemporâneo]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<page-range>57-85</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Rio de Janeiro ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Renovar]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[HERMITTE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Marie-Angèle]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="fr"><![CDATA["Le droit est un autre monde"]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Enquête]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<volume>VII</volume>
<page-range>17-37</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LATOUR]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Bruno]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[La fabrique du droit: une ethnographie du Conseil d'État]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Paris ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[La Découverte]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LATOUR]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Bruno]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA["Scientific objects and legal objectivity"]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pottage]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mundy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social. Cambridge]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<page-range>73-114</page-range><publisher-name><![CDATA[Cambridge University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[MEZAROBBA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Glenda Lorena]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[O preço do esquecimento: as reparações pagas às vítimas do regime militar (uma comparação entre Brasil, Argentina e Chile)]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[MUNDY]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Martha]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[POTTAGE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Alain]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social]]></source>
<year>.). </year>
<month>20</month>
<day>04</day>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Cambridge ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Cambridge University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[POTTAGE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Alain]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA["Introduction: the fabrication of persons and things"]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pottage]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mundy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<page-range>1-39</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Cambridge ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Cambridge University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[POTTAGE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Alain]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA["The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies"]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>III</volume>
<page-range>321-344</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[STRATHERN]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Marilyn]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Kinship, law and the unexpected]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Cambridge ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Cambridge University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[TARTUCE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Flávio]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA["Os direitos da personalidade no novo Código Civil"]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[THOMAS]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Yan]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA["Res Religiosae: on the categories of religion and commerce in Roman law"]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pottage]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mundy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<page-range>40-72</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Cambridge ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Cambridge University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[VIANNA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Luiz Werneck]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA["Poder judiciário, 'positivação do direito natural' e política"]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Estudos Históricos]]></source>
<year>1996</year>
<volume>XVIII</volume>
<page-range>1-20</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ZELIZER]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Viviana]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="fr"><![CDATA["Intimité et économie"]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Terrain]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<month>15</month>
<day> s</day>
<volume>45</volume>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
