The new rules for electronic judgments and recorded oral support generated dissatisfaction in and other civilians of law. The reactions have intensified since September after the publication of Resolution 591, which brings the minimum requirements for these procedures throughout the judiciary.
In March, OAB’s reelected president, Beto Simonetti, reaffirmed in his inaugural speech the entity’s position on the subject. “The prerogatives of law, such as oral support, are fundamental to the valorization of the citizen who calls for justice, and we will not give up this struggle,” he said.
The speech took place in the presence of Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, president of and CNJ, and adds to a series of opposing demonstrations of OAB leaders and other entities on the subject.
After criticism, Barroso told the judiciary to “back” by adopting as a rule the asynchronous (non -simultaneous) model. “Oral support should only be made by recording where face -to -face support creates such dysfunctionality to the court that this is imperative,” the minister said at the first ordinary meeting of the 2025 CNJ in February.
Prior to that, on January 30, the deadlines for implementing the new rules were suspended at the request of the courts themselves, which have been up to 180 days to adapt. Simonetti celebrated the decision and stated that the progress of the norm “compromises the exercise of law.”
In this model, which was expanded to the entire judiciary by the 2024 resolution, defense and accusation present their arguments in previously recorded audio or video files. The argument is not presented in person, which, in the view of the representatives of law, would reinforce the guarantees of broad defense.
Widespread during pandemic, the virtualization of justice was also questioned in the criminal actions involving the, led by Minister Alexandre de Moraes in the STF. At the beginning of the trials, the OAB sent a letter asking the president of the Supreme at the time, Minister Rosa Weber, to reconsider the decision and judge the defendants in person, in view of “relevance and exceptionality of criminal proceedings”.
He has not manifested himself about conducting these actions and showed concern for asynchronous oral support.
The clash caused it to present it in April 2024, one to ensure the right of lawyers to oral support at any trial session. This change would take from the internal regiments of the courts the power to decide on the subject. With the new rules of Resolution 591, each agency can choose how to implement this feature.
Sensitive points
It makes no distinction of procedural classes and topics in which recorded support will be used. According to Guilherme Carnelós, president of IDDD, any errors caused by the virtual proceedings of the proceedings may be even more harmful to the defendants of criminal actions, “that deal with human freedom.”
He argues that face -to -face contact during public trial may be essential so that magistrates do not make mistakes when making decisions. “If the reasoning of a judge […] Part of an incorrect factual premise, I, as a lawyer, have the prerogative and duty to raise my hand and clarify, “says Carlós.
The argument that virtualization occurs due to the speed of the processing of court proceedings is rejected by Carnelós. He argues that faster justice is a right of the accused and not a benefit of the magistrate, and cannot harm the defendants in his defenses.
Another sensitive point is the possibility of a process that would be judged electronically to be transferred to a face -to -face audience. For this to happen, the rapporteur must accept the prominent request made by a lawyer. The new rules do not mark this procedure, and the result is a discretionary choice.
The decision of the CNJ that extended the deadlines for the courts implement the new rules also dealt with this at the request of the OAB. Signed by Barroso, the text says that the new rules “should not be read as a prohibition to the hypotheses of automatic prominence or as determination for the courts to restrict prominence possibilities.”
By appropriating the new resolution, courts may adopt distinct internal rules, reducing or increasing the power of lawyers when deciding on the hypothesis of face -to -face judgment. No, for example, the processes are automatically taken from the electronic judgment after a prominent request.
The resolution also requires votes in virtual judgments to be made public when they are made available by the ministers or judges, which is not yet standardized throughout the judiciary. Currently, this is not what happens in, which provides the position of each judge only at the end of the sessions.
With the new minimum requirements, the courts must disclose the votes in real time in the court’s virtual plenary. Electronic judgments were already conducted in this way in the Supreme and other courts.
A judge of the ear by the Sheet is afraid of the measure. According to him, immediate advertising diminishes the space of discussion among the magistrates and can inhibit the change of position after the publication of the votes in the system, which, according to him, is not uncommon.
Carolós rebuts the position of the magistrate. He says that the publicity of the trials must be reaffirmed both at the time of the votes and the possibility of intervention of lawyers during the sessions. “There is no republican reason to be afraid to change the vote,” he says.
