Reformed captain Ailton Gonçalves Moraes Barros, led by the former president, asked, in his response to the prosecution, the suspicion of the minister, the (Supreme Court).
Barros, which is represented by the Union, was denounced as one of those responsible for the misinformation strategy of the electoral process. It was also one of those who pressed the chiefs of joining the coup.
In the answer, he cites the incompetence of the Supreme Court to judge the complaint that involves it, because it has no function prerogative. However, the defense of Barros states that if the claim is not answered, the trial should be made by the court plenary, instead of the first class, of Moraes.
In the argument, the Defender says that “divergent votes in the judgment of the case were uttered by ministers who do not integrate the first class of the Supreme Court, which may interfere with the outcome of the process.”
The answer also questions Moraes’s impartiality to conduct investigations and criminal proceedings established because of them. According to DPU, the minister worked, “during the preliminary investigation, as a judge of guarantees and, according to the initial accusatory, would be the target of undemocratic actions.”
In addition, it questions this “‘participation’ of the judge in the case since the beginning of the collection of evidential elements, when one is not sure about the occurrence of the fact, its authorship, its circumstances.”
The Defender states that Moraes is nominally cited as alleged target of undemocratic actions and “not only would have been the target of monitoring actions, but would also have been orchestrated threat to their physical integrity.”
The defense argues that a series of very serious crimes is imputed to Barros, but without proper individualization. “Although it is perfectly possible to identify precisely those who broke a certain glassware, or destroyed an important art object, the prosecution preferred to denounce all people including not even in place,” he says.
According to DPU, the case file “does not bring sufficient evidence of authorship capable of authorizing, against him, the processing of a criminal case.”
Regarding the accusation of being responsible for the strategy of misinformation about the electoral process, the defense states that there is no element of investigation to subsidize this complaint. “It is not minimally proven, nor that the accused joined the other accused to commit crimes or even who did so stable.”
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
