The Brazilian law, sanctioned in 2016 by the former president, is out of step with similar legislation and definitions used by other countries and international organizations.
This is because legislators listed a series of motivations that define the crime, but political issues are one of the main domestic roots.
Article 2 provides for acts of terrorism “for reasons of xenophobia, discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity and religion, when committed with the purpose of provoking social or generalized terror”.
At the time, left-wing congressmen and activists agreed to ensure that the proposal did not include political reasons, out of fear that the legislation could be used to criminalize legitimate protests by social movements.
The exclusion of one of the main motivations for domestic terrorism, however, makes it difficult or prevents acts such as , when locksmith Francisco Wanderley Luiz, 59, (Federal Supreme Court), in , from being observed within the scope of this criminal type.
Another example is that of Bolsonarist George Washington de Oliveira Sousa, who, after the former president’s defeat in 2022, in the federal capital, including at the airport, but was not convicted based on the anti-terrorism law.
He was charged with other crimes under the Penal Code, such as exposing the life, physical integrity or property of another to danger.
In a statement to the Civil Police, George Washington said that the objective was to “start chaos”, which would lead to “the declaration of a state of siege in the country” and could “provoke the intervention of the Armed Forces”.
Today, acts of political extremism are included in the list of crimes, which replaced the National Security Law, from the time of the military dictatorship.
But not all political attacks, such as that of George Washington, fall under the new legislation. It restricted, for example, the application of the crime of sabotage, which is no longer recognized in planned attacks against airports.
Despite possible gaps, the absence of political motivation in the anti-terrorism law is explained because crimes against the rule of law generally encompass these cases, says Diego Nunes, law professor at UFSC (Federal University of Santa Catarina).
He recalls that the minimum penalties for crimes on this list and for terrorism are similar. “Everyone starts from the same level in theory,” he says.
Professor of international relations at PUC Minas, lawyer Jorge Lasmar says, on the other hand, that the exclusion of political motivations causes problems regarding the definition of competence to investigate the crime.
“There are, for example, attacks related to neo-Nazism which, depending on whether [o caso] is classified as an act of terrorism or racial discrimination, the jurisdiction goes from the Federal Police to the Civil Police, and vice versa”, he states.
Not classifying a political attack as terrorism also makes it difficult to apply other legislation, he highlights.
For example, there is a law that provides for the unavailability of assets of people investigated for terrorism. Another law deals with the Union’s civil liability in the case of terrorist attacks against Brazilian aircraft.
“Se [o crime] It is not considered terrorism, there is no such entry”, says Lasmar.
Since 2016, human rights organizations have warned about attempts to expand the definition of terrorism, which they believe could open space for political persecution.
More recently, ten groups demonstrated against a bill being processed in Congress that amends the anti-terrorism law. The initial text, later modified, equated conduct with the purpose of causing “civil disturbances” in the name of a terrorist organization or criminal group to terrorist acts.
“The initial version of the Anti-Terrorism Law made problematic predictions when considering ‘political-ideological’ motivations”, said a note signed by the organizations. “One of civil society’s main victories was the overturning of this item. This guarantee, however, has since been attacked in different legislative projects.”
In other countries, George Washington, the Bolsonarist who planned to explode a bomb at Brasília airport, could have been convicted based on anti-terrorism legislation.
In the United States, for example, federal legislation does not penalize domestic terrorism —invaders have been convicted of crimes such as conspiracy and use of a deadly weapon against a police officer—, but most states have their own specific laws for this type of attack that do not exclude motivations policies.
The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) defines domestic terrorism as violent acts committed by individuals or groups seeking to advance their ideological goals motivated by political, religious, social, racial or environmental influences.
The organization considers anti-government violent extremism to be one of the main aspects of this type of terrorism.
The United Kingdom also recognizes the prevalence of political reasons in acts of terrorism. The legislation relating to the topic defines that the crime is inspired by the purpose of advancing ideological causes of a political, religious or racial nature.
In Spain, the crime of terrorism also does not exclude political motivations and includes any serious attack against the Crown, recognizing the subversion of the constitutional order as one of the purposes of this crime. Members of the Basque separatist organization ETA, for example, were convicted of terrorism.
In one of its resolutions, from 1995, the (United Nations) defined an act of terrorism as one that aims to provoke terror in the general public or in a group of people for political purposes, being unjustifiable, regardless of “considerations of a political nature , philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious” that may be invoked.
