The recent performance of the former president () justifies the adoption of precautionary measures such as the use of an electronic anklet, after order of the (Supreme Court), in the opinion of experts heard by Sheet.
Among the arguments cited by Minister Alexandre de Moraes in the court decision, however, the most fragile is that of sovereignty attack, a crime provided for in the Penal Code.
The judicial decision cites in the third paragraph of the play the crimes of coercion in the course of the case, obstruction of justice and violent abolition to the Democratic Rule of Law. In the text, there is also mention of the crime of attack on sovereignty.
The same crimes are cited in an open inquiry against licensed deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP), son of the former president. He is investigated due to an offensive abroad against Alexandre de Moraes and other authorities.
The offensive increased last week after demonstrations by US President Donald Trump, who on Brazilian products to Jair Bolsonaro’s trial in the criminal action regarding the 2022 coup plot.
According to the STF’s decision, Bolsonaro would participate in the same offenses as Eduardo abroad. The play cites the former president’s funding to his son’s stay in the United States, as well as interviews and posts.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has determined that the former president wears an electronic anklet, not absent from the district and is on home collection during the night and on weekends, holidays and days off. The former president was also prohibited from approaching embassies and consulates, using social networks and talking to foreign, defendants and investigated authorities.
For criminalist lawyer Priscila Pamela Santos, The decision presents evidence of authorship and evidence of materiality of coercion crimes in the course of the process and obstruction of justice.
“It is no longer due to the risk of a criminal practice, but already for a consummate practice in which his action was clear [Bolsonaro]coupled with Eduardo, to coerce the judiciary to make an improper amnesty from threats from a foreign country, “he says.
She states that the crime of bombing to sovereignty, provided for in Article 359-I of the Penal Code, is more complex to evaluate and must be “under investigation”.
According to Santos, all imposed precautionary measures were reasonable, since the scenario could even justify the pre-trial detention of the former president.
For Marcelo Crespo, professor and coordinator of ESPM Law Course, the restrictions on Bolsonaro are justified due to the context involving the former Mandanker.
He says that both the crimes of violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and that of sovereignty attack are the least based on the decision. The first is subject to questioned, but can be understood as plausible depending on interpretation, he says.
The crime of sovereignty attack would be more fragile, since the criminal type speaks of negotiating with foreign government in order to provoke typical acts of war. “It doesn’t seem to me that they are typical of war,” says the expert.
For Curly, the Supreme Court assessed a risk of escape due to recent movements involving Trump, Bolsonaro and Eduardo. “They understand that there is a play between father and son,” he says, which would also justify the search and seizure held this Friday to obtain tests.
Both Santos and Crespo evaluate that the restriction on contact with investigated and the prohibition of use of social networks are also justified.
“I understand that the measures are appropriate, because the former president’s main form of communication has been through social networks, which has a great impact and brings very easily to communicate with the population, but, in particular, with their supporters and who is orchestrating their activities against the country,” says Crespo.
For criminalist Guilherme Carnelós, partner at RCVA office and president of IDDD (Institute of Defense Defense), Bolsonaro’s movement can be framed as coercion and even obstruction. However, he evaluates how difficult to speak of the attack on sovereignty and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law.
Carolós interprets as justifiable the restriction measures of time and contact with embassies and foreign authorities. However, it states that the prohibition of using social networks can be understood “as a degree of authoritarianism.”
For lawyer Renato Vieira, former president of IBCCRIM (Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences), Bolsonaro monitoring can be seen as necessary to ensure the defendant’s permanence at the home of criminal action, in order to enable the eventual application of the law. Therefore, he considers that the restrictions imposed were adequate.
Vieira, however, makes the exception that it considers excessive to prohibit networks and contact with other investigated.
The lawyer evaluates that the measures imposed on Friday indicate caution of the Supreme Court to avoid turmoil around a possible arrest of the former president. The scenario of pre -trial detention, however, may happen if Bolsonaro fails to comply with the current precautionary measures.
