The minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) maintained, this Friday (17), the decision to go to the inauguration of the president-elect in the United States.
Moraes denied the appeal presented the day before by Bolsonaro’s defense. The minister stated that he adopted the position “for his own reasons” and referred the case to the (Attorney General’s Office) for a statement, within five days. Trump takes office on Monday (20).
Bolsonaro’s initial request had been denied on Thursday (16). The minister mentioned the existence of a risk of flight for the former president, indicted in cases such as the 2022 coup plot.
“The scenario that supported the imposition of a ban on being absent from the country, with the delivery of passports, continues to indicate the possibility of an attempt to evade the accused Jair Messias Bolsonaro to avoid the application of criminal law”, wrote the judge.
Moraes justified that Bolsonaro has already publicly expressed himself in favor of the escape of those convicted of crimes and their remaining as fugitives abroad, especially in Argentina.
He also considered that no document was added to the file to prove the veracity of the invitation made by the US president-elect to Bolsonaro.
At the time, the Attorney General of the Republic, arguing that there was no demonstrated “basic, urgent and inescapable need” for the former president to leave the country. Furthermore, Gonet stated that the desired trip was intended to “satisfy private interests” and was not essential.
Bolsonaro’s defense appealed the denial, stating that there was “no indication” of the former president’s intention to breach the legislation, considering that he has complied with the precautionary measures imposed.
“It is also important to note that the travel request – regardless of its purpose – is punctual, and is not a renewal of the request to revoke precautionary measures”, they said, adding that Bolsonaro remains “merely investigated” and the PF report from November does not change the situation of the case.
Regarding Moraes’ mention of the post that defends amnesty for those involved in the attacks in early 2023, the lawyers said it integrates the right to freedom of expression and does not indicate disrespect for criminal legislation.
“Defending a bill that is actually being debated in Congress is not remotely to be confused with a supposed ‘position contrary to the application of criminal law and judicial decisions'”, they stated.
