The decision of the Federal Supreme Court of sending on trial last Tuesday (23) was an “abusive act without justification”, according to the president of -SP (Brazilian Bar Association of São Paulo),.
The Court analyzed at the time the complaint offered by (Attorney General’s Office) against the so-called core of the 2022 coup plot. In the end, the ministers decided to make defendants of attempted coup.
There was no determination of cell phones in the coup plot, which includes the former president (). The court states, however, that filming in the classroom is prohibited and that several people have circumvented this rule.
It also says that there is a determination of the minister to – the presidency and now defendant – do not be filmed. On Monday (21), the minister reiterated that no image could be captured or disclosed in the trial or on displacements, even by third parties.
“We had, the, all the judgments. This never happened,” says the president of OAB-SP. He recognizes, in theory, the possibility of imposing such a measure, but only based on legal provision or a fact that justifies it – which, in its understanding, does not exist.
The problem, according to the lawyer, is that this order creates a precedent for abuse of power. “The act itself may seem banal, but it is not. What is the concern? Tomorrow, any judge from any district in Brazil is morally authorized to do the same.”
Last Tuesday, the OAB Federal Council published a note in which it said it would ask the minister, president of the first class, to revise the measure that determined the seal of cell phones.
Zanin’s office scheduled a meeting with national OAB representatives, including President Beto Simonetti, for the afternoon of Monday (28) to discuss the issue.
President of the IDDD (Institute of Defense of the Law of Defense), Guilherme Carnelós states that the sealing of cell phones is a terrible signaling of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to law.
“There is the imposition of this sin that the recording will serve for anti -juridical, jocos and spurious purposes. If any criminal publication is done, the court should take the attitudes later.”
Carolós also draws attention to the fact that the Supreme acted from the absence of legislation on the subject. “It should not be necessary explanations about the recording. What the law does not prohibit it allows. So we have a permission in the face of an absence,” he says.
AAASP (São Paulo Lawyers Association) also issued a note in which it recognizes the importance of maintaining security in judgment environments, but criticizes what it called the “serious limitation to the free practice” of law.
The entity says that the measure contradicts constitutional guarantees and argues that restrictions must be “grounded, proportional and individual, respecting the public nature of sessions and the rights legally guaranteed to the class”.
For Márcia Dinis, president of the Rio de Janeiro State Criminal Bar Association and the criminology commission of, the ban should have focused on individual attitudes without a generic determination.
The lawyer also cites a rule of the Code of Civil Procedure that guarantees the right to full recording of the judgment in image or audio by either party, regardless of judicial authorization.
“Blocking the cell phone generally because of individual attitudes is to suppress a greater right guaranteed by the constitution, the exercise of the profession and the broad defense. [É] As if they were going to take books and blocks from annotations and any kind of communication, “he says.
