The contents in front of the headquarters of the (Supreme Federal Court) on Wednesday night (13) are still insufficient to indicate.
The assessment is made by legal experts consulted by the Sheetwhich highlight the need for the investigation to indicate whether there are other people involved in the attacks, since he died, which could lead to the case being closed.
On Thursday (14), the STF minister and members of the government () sought to rule out the hypothesis of an isolated fact and .
The majority understanding among these lawyers is that the circumstances of the actions indicate, in theory, the commission of crimes against the democratic rule of law.
The framework as such is not seen as possible so far, since Brazilian law establishes the need for, and not for political reasons.
According to the director general of the Federal Police, Andrei Rodrigues, investigators found one on 8/1 and is currently under arrest.
whether he participated in the coup acts of January 8 or was in the camps in front of the Army Headquarters. A brother told Sheet that .
Searches and seizures were authorized by Moraes.
The first pages of the files were sent to the president of the STF, Luís Roberto Barroso, who, in turn, identified that the explosions were related to the January 8 investigations and, therefore, it was up to Moraes to report on the attack investigation.
For experts, it is still not clear what the connecting elements identified by the minister were, which for Helena Regina Lobo, who is a lawyer and professor of criminal law at USP, is due to the initial stage of the investigation.
“It is possible that the police have already found elements of his participation in the attacks or his connection with groups and the STF has used this, but they do not want to disclose exactly so as not to frustrate the investigation into possible people involved.”
The president of IBCCrim (Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences), Renato Stanziola Vieira, states that for an investigation to be included in another, there must be a link between the evidence, people or purpose and that the Judiciary needs to act impartially.
“The role of the Judiciary is crucial in maintaining the Rule of Law and, to this extent, no judge can behave as an accuser or investigator, under penalty of distorting the mission constitutionally given to him”, he says.
Raquel Scalcon, consultant and professor of criminal law at FGV-SP, agrees with the need for technical basis for the case to be handled by Moraes and reinforces that the first question to be answered by investigators is whether the perpetrator of the attacks acted alone or received support from other people or criminal organizations.
“For it to make sense to continue the investigation or even for there to be some type of complaint, it is necessary to identify which other people were involved, because, if there are not, it ends here for this sad reason, which is the death.”
The three lawyers agree that, due to the role played by the STF, the attacks characterize, in theory, the crime of violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, defined as attempting, with the use of or serious threat, to abolish the democratic rule of law, preventing or restricting the exercise of constitutional powers.
The penalty for the crime varies from four to eight years in prison, in addition to the penalty for the violence committed, and could be applied to potential accomplices, if direct contribution to the acts is proven.
Scalcon considers that the classification would depend on proof of the intention of the perpetrator of the crime. Another possibility, he says, would be the crime of explosion, provided for by the Penal Code, whose penalty ranges from three to six years in prison, in addition to a fine, and can be increased by a third if it targets a public building.
Although she agrees with the STF’s competence for investigations and considers the act serious, Insper lawyer and professor Marina Coelho disagrees with the others and understands that there was no attack.
“In my opinion, what happened has a personal perspective of mental disruption combined with the demonstration of political dissatisfaction and even dissatisfaction against institutions, which in a democratic society can be regretted, but never criminalized. There was no attack in the sense required by legislation , against someone or against some institution”, says the lawyer, who adds that she sees no elements of connection with the January 8th attacks or the practice of terrorism.
For Lobo, the fact of exposing people to danger, considering that the STF was still active at the time of the act, would allow it to be classified as terrorism, however, the characterization is not possible, as Brazilian law .
