The bold performance of the licensed federal deputy abroad, where he calls for sanctions to the country and Brazilian authorities, makes it difficult to frame the atypical attitude in crime and could generate the cancellation of the mandate, in the opinion of experts heard by Sheet.
They talk about cassation as a possible path as the deputy would be breaking the fundamental duty provided for in the “promoting defense of public interest and national sovereignty” and cite the possibility of requests for precautionary measures if the inquiry against the deputy in the (Federal Supreme Court) advance.
Against the expert’s interpretation, Eduardo Bolsonaro spoke on Monday (14) about alternatives to save his mandate from changes in the House regiment, although in the coming days, when his license period ends.
Which would depart from office to make in the United States an offensive in favor of sanctions against Brazilian authorities involved in processes that investigate his father, the former president (PL), and allies. The main target is the STF minister, a prosecution rapporteur who judges a coup plot to prevent the inauguration of the president ().
Since then, Eduardo began to intensify the speech that he and family members would be persecuted politicians, as well as expanding performance defending sanctions to Moraes.
The behavior generated one at the request of (Attorney General’s Office). In the request, the Prosecutor’s Office speaks of coercion crimes in the course of the process, obstruction of criminal offense investigation involving criminal organization and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law.
The representation also emphasizes, throughout the text, that the “attempt to submit the functioning of the Federal Supreme Court to the sieve of another state characterizes attack on national sovereignty”, a crime provided for in the Penal Code. The inquiry is underway. This Friday (18), on the charges of the same crimes involving Eduardo in this investigation.
Even with the investigation, the licensed deputy continued the offensive, which linked the recent decision of the president of,. Another repercussion was the announcement, this Friday, of revocation by the US government of Visas de Moraes and “its allies in the court.”
For Thiago Bottino, professor at FGV Law Rio, the performance of Eduardo abroad is so strange that it escapes possible frames provided for in Brazilian law.
He says that the attitude of the parliamentarian would not fit the crimes proposed by PGR for not involving, for example, violence or serious threat, as provided for in the crimes of coercion in the course of process and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law.
Bottino also understands that it is not the case with obstruction of justice. This is because Eduardo would try to obstruct – is no longer under investigation, a condition provided for by law.
“It’s such a bustling thing [a atuação de Eduardo] That no one would ever think this could happen, no one worried about creating this crime, “says Bottino.
Atypicality, he says, makes it difficult for criminal law, but does not change the fact that behavior is a violation of the duties provided for by law to a federal deputy, which could lead to cassation.
For David Tangerino, a criminalist lawyer and professor at UERJ (Rio de Janeiro State University), the crime with the most traction among those cited by PGR is the violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, although it is linked to violence or serious threat.
The line of interpretation proposed by the teacher is to condition the interruption of a US -defined tariff to Lula interference in other powers – with an amnesty request in the legislature or an interruption of criminal action against Jair Bolsonaro in the judiciary – would be “an invasion of the democratic state.”
“There are threats on sanction, tariff and law magnitsky [lei dos Estados Unidos que pune violações de direitos humanos e que ]. Does all this together give body to a serious threat? “He asks. He agrees that the parliamentarian’s behavior is a break from decorum of loss of mandate, already requested by the opposition.
According to Welington Arruda, a criminalist lawyer and master in law and justice from IDP (Brazilian Institute of Teaching, Development and Research), the accusations against the politician could fit into the crime of sovereignty attack, despite the specificity of the case.
“We have a situation of their kind In which an individual, who was one of the most voted federal deputies in Brazil, moved away from office to go to the United States to lobby against Brazilian authorities, “he says.
Experts are divided into the possibility of pre -trial detention to Eduardo if he now returns to Brazil. The argument has been used by the parliamentarian himself, who says he intends to return when “Alexandre de Moraes has no strength to arrest me.”
For Thiago Bottino, there is no reason now that they would give rise to a preventive if Eduardo returned to the country. Welington Arruda says this can happen depending on the consequences of investigations. Already David Tangerino says that a request for arrest could be made with the claim that the politician coerces the Supreme Court, although this is unlikely.
Experts state that requests for precautionary measures, such as what happened with Jair Bolsonaro, may arise later, if Eduardo Bolsonaro shows that he will not return to Brazil and make it difficult for the process or the application of criminal law in a conviction scenario.
Crimes cited in the investigation against Eduardo Bolsonaro for acting abroad
Coercion in the course of the process
Article 344 of the Penal Code: Use of violence or serious threat, in order to favor self or alien interest, against authority, part, or anyone who works or is called to intervene in judicial, police or administrative process, or in arbitration court:
Penalty – imprisonment, from one to four years, and fine, in addition to the penalty corresponding to violence.
Obstruction of criminal offense investigation involving criminal organization
Article 2 of Law 12.850/13: Promote, constitute, finance or integrate, personally or by interposed person, criminal organization. Paragraph 1. In the same penalties incur who prevents or, in any way, embarrass the investigation of criminal offense involving criminal organization.
Penalty – imprisonment, from 3 to 8 years, and fine, without prejudice to the penalties corresponding to the other criminal offenses committed.
Violent abolition of the democratic rule of law
Article 359-L of the Penal Code: To try, with the use of violence or serious threat, to abolish the democratic rule of law, preventing or restricting the exercise of constitutional powers.
Penalty – imprisonment, from four to eight years, in addition to the penalty corresponding to violence.
Sovereignty
Article 359-I of the Penal Code: Negotiating with foreign government or group, or its agents, in order to cause typical acts of war against the country or invade it.
Penalty – imprisonment, from 3 (three) to 8 (eight) years.
