The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), classified the decision to send in trial as exceptional and made in conjunction with the other members of the first class of the Court.
Last week, the court determined that the telephone lawyers and journalists accompanying the trial of core 2 of the coup plot were sealed.
“Exceptional action aimed to ensure the court liturgy, the smooth running of the work and the fulfillment of a decision of the rapporteur minister, who won the use of the image of one of the accused who present in that session,” says a statement from the Supreme Court released on Monday (28).
Zanin received representatives of the Federal Council of OAB this afternoon (Brazilian Bar Association)
In the same note, the Supreme Court only states that “filming and photographs are not allowed in the court’s judgment sessions, either in the plenary or in the classes.”
The minister’s office were on Monday the president of the entity, Beto Simonetti, and the attorney general Sérgio Leonardo.
Last Tuesday, the OAB Federal Council published a note in which it said it would ask the minister to revise the measure.
The decision was made by the ministers of, presided by Zanin. The justification presented at the time was the breach of court rules at the session in March, in which (PL) became a defendant, with people filming the former president’s entry into the board.
The court also said there was a determination of Minister Alexandre de Moraes to Filipe Martins – the presidency and now defendant’s advisor – not to 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.
On the same day, the OAB let out a note stating that it would ask for a review of the measure.
“The OAB recognizes the importance of security and order in judgments. However, the use of audio and video recording devices in public sessions is supported by law and constitutes a prerogative of law and cannot be restricted without clear and specific legal foundation,” says the text, signed by Simonetti.
The president of -SP, also complained about the measure. According to him, it was one.
“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.”
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.
Collaborated Arthur Guimarães de Oliveira and João Pedro Abdo
