The decision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes, (Supreme Federal Court), to suspend the extradition of Bulgarian Vasil Georgiev Vasilev to Spain, alleging lack of reciprocity from the country, is controversial among experts heard by Sheetwhich cite both the relevance of the measure and the possibility of it was illegal.
The magistrate suspended the delivery of Bulgarian to Spain after the country has denied, on Tuesday (15),-Brazil since 2023, he is the target of two arrest warrants of the Supreme for crimes against democracy and corruption of minors. Vasil Georgiev Vasilev is convicted in Spain for drug trafficking.
The negative in extradite Eustaquio to Brazil, the second this year, is based on the interpretation of Spanish justice that the crimes from which the influencer is accused are “less serious crimes” involved in “context of political dispute”.
Arguing that Eustaquio committed serious crimes by acting against democracy and making public pressure against authorities investigating a coup plot.
Oswaldo Eustáquio became known for his performance on social networks in favor of the former president (PL), when he publicly participated in scammer camps and spread lies about the ballot boxes.
Specialists heard by Sheet They were divided as to the legality of Moraes’ decision to suspend Bulgarian Vasilev’s extradition as opposed to the negative of Spain in the case of the scholarship influencer.
For Evandro Carvalho, professor of international law at FGV Law Rio, the magistrate may, by the principle of reciprocity provided for in international agreements, do not comply with the request of the European country, which, in turn, also has sovereignty to deny extradition.
Carvalho states, however, that Spain refers to a justification based on the principle of freedom of expression to deny extradition and that this perspective disregards the real severity of crimes imputed to the pockets.
According to Eduardo Manuel Val, professor in international, constitutional and comparative law at UFF (Fluminense Federal University) and Estácio de Sá, Moraes has, from a technical point of view, competence to claim to break in reciprocity by suspending the extradition of the convict Bulgarian.
The teacher states that the foundation of Spain to deny extradition starts from a subjective perception of what would be political persecution to Eustachian, a condition protected by the treaty that regulates the subject between countries.
This perception, however, argues, would be in dissonance with what the Spanish justice itself decided when it used typifications similar to those imputed to the pockets, of attack on the Democratic Rule of Law, to condemn separatist leaders involved in the dispute for Catalonia.
“In 2017, there was a series of judgments of Catalan leaders in Spain involved in the so -called process of trying to ward off Catalonia from the Spanish democratic state. These people were tried and convicted of crimes involving typifications very similar to which we are talking [no caso de Eustáquio] “, he says.” The Spanish court seems to consider the STF’s motivations because it is a situation that takes place in Latin America, but does not consider policy the decisions made by Spanish justice at the time of 2017. “
Eduardo Maurício, an international criminal lawyer who specializes in extradition and doctoral student in Salamanca University, interprets that Moraes’s measure can be considered illegal if it has been guided only in the allegation of breach of reciprocity.
He states that Spanish justice understood that there was “a political imprint and supposed persecution” to Eustachian, which legally justifies the country’s refusal, since this is a condition provided for in the treaty between Brazil and Spain.
Moraes’s decision to deny Bulgarian extradition, if supported only in the principle of reciprocity, formally formally fulfilling any legal requirements, since the idea of reciprocity cannot be used so generally to justify the negative of a case of drug trafficking not foreseen in the agreement between the two countries.
Maira Scavuzzi, lawyer and professor of Constitutional Law at PUC-SP, agrees that the Moraes measure can be considered illegal in this case.
“Minister Alexandre’s conduct had much more a desire for retaliation than a legal foundation itself. When we speak of reciprocity, we speak of applying the same criterion and rules for situations that are analogous,” says Scavuzzi.
“Alexandre de Moraes suspended the extradition of an individual whose criminal fact is trafficking. To say that there would be reciprocity, the two individuals had to be in a minimally similar situation,” he says.
