General Braga Netto’s lawyers once again asked the Supreme Court (STF) to extend the deadline for the presentation of the prior defense of the complaint presented by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) for attempted coup.
The rapporteur of the case at the Supreme Court, Minister Alexandre de Moraes ,. The lawyers requested a new reconsideration or for a new deadline to be tried by the first class of the Supreme.
According to the schedule established by the court, the final date for the presentation of the defense by Braga Netto ends this Friday (7). The new request for longer was filed on Wednesday night (5).
Braga Netto was, Paulo Gonet, along with former President Jair Bolsonaro and 32 others. By the prosecution, those involved participated in the planning and attempt to execute a coup and the abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, among other crimes.
Moraes applied to the case the deadline provided for in the Supreme Court’s Internal Regulations, of 15 days for the presentation of defense against criminal complaint. Braga Netto’s defense, however, argues that the criminal legislation and precedents of the Court recommend granting double deadline.
Among other arguments, the defense claims that there is not enough time to examine the hundreds of thousands of evidence and documents that served as the basis for the complaint. In one of the HD received, for example, there would be 390 gigabytes of data and over 110,000 files.
Continues after advertising
Another argument of the lawyers is that Braga Netto would have the right to present a defense only after Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid, who signed an award-winning agreement. This request is based on article 4 of the award -winning collaboration law, according to which the reported one must have the right to speak after the whistleblower “at all stages of the process.”
In denying the deadline in double, in the first request, Moraes stated that “there is no legal provision” for manifestation after the whistleblower, because the guarantee given by law would apply only after eventual opening of criminal action, ie, after the acceptance or not of the complaint.
For lawyers, the restrictive interpretation of the term “process”, contained in the law, violates the principle of broad defense and contradictory. They presented precedent from Moraes himself who, in the understanding of the defense, would authorize the manifestation of the accused only after the whistleblower.
Continues after advertising
Access to tests
Lawyers José Luis Oliveira Lima and Rodrigo Dall’Acqua also claim not to have access to the full evidence that supported the complaint. According to them, the material delivered to them would not be the same delivered to another defense, having more than 1,000 less files.
The defense also states that physical processes, not yet digitized, and were indicated by PGR as subsidies for the complaint, would not have been made available.
At first opportunity, the allegations were rebutted by Moraes, who denied any impediment in full access to the tests. “Once again, there is no reason for the defense, which, it seems to have not consulted the file,” said the minister.
