The interrogation phase was over, the criminal action 2,668, which investigates the practice of crimes of coup and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, criminal association and damage by the defendants, Almir Garnier, Augusto Heleno, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira e.
This is because, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the interrogations are made, the time opens for any due diligence and, soon after, determining the submission of final allegations.
From what has been presented so far, there is little chance that this final stretch has some surprise.
The criminal action was instructed with a vast and diverse probative collection, including documents, testimonies, application messages, emails and meetings, among others. Throughout its processing, it was reinforced by other evidence.
The most valued testimonials are often those in which witnesses witnessed the facts. In the case of criminal action, this refers mainly to meetings between Bolsonaro, their ministers and generals, to deal with actions to counteract the result of the 2022 elections.
The most compromising testimony to the defendants may have been that of Brigadier Baptista Junior, claiming to have participated in meetings to discuss “hypotheses of paying against the democratic regime, through some institute provided for in the Constitution”.
The confirmation of the meetings and their subject came even by the defendants themselves. Paulo Sérgio Nogueira and Bolsonaro confirmed the meetings mentioned in the complaint and his subject: study of measures that could be adopted after the defeat in the elections.
The controversy here is in reading that Bolsonaro and his generals have what would be constitutional: state of siege, defense and guarantee of law and order are measures provided for in the Constitution.
However, its use to contest electoral result, intervene in the Electoral Court and prevent elected diplomation would only seek to pass a varnish of legality in the coup, living up to the Brazilian coup tradition.
Overcoming the various phases of criminal action (the receipt of the complaint, the hearing of witnesses and the interrogation), it is already possible to draw points that can be the subject of attention in the approaching judgment.
Some of them have already been raised at a time of prior defense presented by the defendants, such as the jurisdiction of the (Federal Supreme Court) and the first class to judge the criminal action and the regularity of the award -winning collaboration.
Although these two points have been surpassed by the First Board, they can be debated again, especially the assessment of the effectiveness of the award -winning criminal action, that is, whether the employee spoke the truth and contributed to the dismissal of the action or if he damaged him with false information, which would lead to the cancellation of negotiated benefits.
For the (Attorney General’s Office), the crimes of coup and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law began in mid-2011, when the criminal association would have organized to create a speech against the electronic ballot box “in order to delegitimize possible electoral result that was unfavorable and to provide conditions for the deposition of the elected government.”
And the prosecution goes through opinions, meetings, mobilization of radicals, murder plans and disrespect for the elections. Many of these facts were corroborated in the criminal action.
For the defense, it seems that there will be the claim that there was no attempt to coup or attempt at violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, but only – and eventually – preparatory acts, which would not be punishable.
Regardless of prosecution and defense positions, a good technical debate about these crimes is a contribution to the improvement of our institutions and their defense mechanisms.
The Supreme has already made hundreds of decisions interpreting these crimes and, by this case law, seems unlikely to be convinced that Bolsonaro, his ministers, generals, and supporters were just thinking about giving a blow and gave up “because there was no climate” to use the words of General Heleno in his interrogation.
The greatest divergence must even be in the dosimetry of the penalty, a point that brings together disagreement of ministers in the condemnations given so far.
It will be the degree of divergence among the ministers that will allow the defendants to handle appeals against a possible conviction.
By the Supreme Court’s Rules of Procedure, the non -unanimous decision of the class that judges a prosecution proceeding allows the filing of infringing embargoes. But there is no clear court position on the conditions under which this appeal will be accepted, that is, if it will be appropriate in any divergence or if an absolute vote will be required.
Finally, by the rhythm of the criminal action, it is likely that the trial will occur later this year, as well as an execution of the penalty, in the event of conviction. Legally there seems to be obstacles to the 2,668 criminal action to reach its end. If there are obstacles, its probable origin will be external to the court.
