Although the federal deputy (PL-SP) has to announce the decision to license from office and stay in, his legal situation so far and the representation of against him did not bring elements that indicated that this was an imminent risk.
The deputy was not indicted for, nor was the target of recent complaints involving investigations into the coup plot.
In addition, the request submitted by petist congressmen against the deputy, requesting the opening of investigation and seizure of his passport, had few elements that could fit him in the crimes cited, such as attack on national sovereignty and coercion in the course of the process, experts said by Sheet.
On the afternoon of Tuesday (18), after Eduardo announced that he would depart from office, the Attorney General of the Republic, and stated that the conduct of the deputy pointed out in the petition did not constitute the criminal offenses cited.
He states that the actions pointed out if they “insert in the scope of the exercise of parliamentary activity and are unaccompanied by concrete actions that may indicate the criminal intention of the reported”.
The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court).
The party’s request quoted the fact that. The petist parliamentarians argued that their acts could configure a crime against national sovereignty, coercion in the course of the process and the act of embarrassing investigations into criminal organization.
“If Alexandre Moraes wants to apprehend my passport or even arrest me so I can no longer denounce his crimes in the United States, then it is precisely here that I will stay and work more than ever,” Eduardo said in this Tuesday’s video, when hours before the minister’s decision.
“Here [nos EUA]I can focus on seeking the fair punishments that Alexandre de Moraes and his Federal Police Gestapo deserve, “he said.
Diego Nunes, Professor of History of Criminal Law at UFSC (Federal University of Santa Catarina) and organizer of the book “Crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law”, evaluates that, based on what is known so far and what was in the representation of the PT, there are no elements that would configure the crime against national sovereignty, which would require acts of war or invasion.
It does not consider that there is a basis for coercion framing in the course of the process or to embarrass the investigations, which to do so, it would be necessary for other facts to be revealed. In the case of coercion, for example, it points out that it would be necessary to use violence or serious threat.
Thus, Nunes’s understanding is that Eduardo’s conduct in the US has impacts on the political but not legal dimension.
Criminalist Maíra Salomi, vice president of the IASP Criminal Law Commission (Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo), claims to be difficult to frame the case as an attack on sovereignty, because he does not see evidence of typical acts of war, such as inciting another country to move troops to Brazil.
Based on the PT’s petition, the lawyer did not see clear evidence of crimes in the conduct of the deputy. After the video is released, however, she claims to see the possibility of framing in relation to the obstruction of justice and coercion in the course of the process, but because she understood that Eduardo went up the tone against Moraes.
“When it is threatened to punish the minister, we have this possibility of framing,” he says.
Salomi points out, however, that Eduardo was neither indicted nor denounced in the STF’s inquiries about the alleged scammer plot of 2022 and evaluates that it would be necessary to verify to verify that he would be acting to embarrass the investigation.
Rossana Leques, a criminalist lawyer and a master’s degree in Criminal Law from USP, agrees with the position of and evaluates that the PT’s request did not bring elements that pointed to concrete evidence of the crimes listed.
Among the crimes pointed out, she considers that the most distant is that of sovereignty attack, and that the coercion in the course of the process or embarrassment of investigations would be more feasible if there were further details.
She points out, on the other hand, that to be configured embarrassment to investigations would take something quite concrete, which actually endanger her progress.
Mauricio Stegemann Dieter, professor at USP’s Criminal Law Department, says Eduardo’s decision may impact other investigations against the deputy.
“It draws attention to him [Eduardo] do not return to the national territory. This puts it in the spotlight and should increase scrutiny. It is a political decision with legal reflexes, “he says.
