There is no risk evidence of Bolsonaro’s escape, says Fux

Minister Luiz Fux, of the Supreme Court (STF), voted against the application of measures to the former president (PL), including the determination of the use of an electronic anklet. On Monday (21.Jul.2025), the magistrate in relation to the majority already formed in the 1st Class, who confirmed the decision of the Minister of Court Alexandre de Moraes.

Fux was isolated in the trial, which ended with 4 votes to 1 for maintaining precautionary measures. In his vote, the magistrate said that the PF (Federal Police) and PGR (Attorney General’s Office) “No new and concrete evidence in the case file of any attempted escape undertaken or planned by the former president”. He also said that he prevents Bolsonaro from using social networks confronts freedom of expression. Read the vote (PDF – 121 kb).

Here’s the main arguments of Fux in his vote against Moraes’s decision:

• Fux disagrees that the STF could be influenced by threats: “From this angle, however, it must be concluded that the court has unequivocally demonstrated its independence and impermeability to the pressures of the sectors that manifest displeasure with their decisions.”;
• Regarding the investigation for investigation of conduct of the licensed federal deputy (PL-SP), Fux states that “In the criminal action to which former President Jair Messias Bolsonaro answers, it appears that he has a certain domicile and passport withheld ”;
• Regarding the economic issues of interference from the United States, Fux says they should be dealt with in their own political and diplomatic channels: “The Federal Police and the Attorney General’s Office did not present new and concrete evidence in the case of any attempted escape undertaken by the former president, so that the precautionary protection of the fulfillment of the ‘periculum in delay’ is lacking (the danger of delay) and the ‘fumus commissi delicti’ (the smoke of commitment to the crime) to substantiate ‘decisive’, with expressive gravity, with expressive gravity. It is based on ‘possible practice of illicit’ ”;
• Fux says that “The breadth of imposed measures disproportionately restricts fundamental rights, such as freedom to come and go and freedom of expression and communication, without contemporary, concrete and individualized demonstration of the requirements that would legally authorize the imposition of these precautions ”.;
• The STF minister states that the need for precautionary measures imposed is not at this time: “Even for the imposition of criminal precautions diverse of prison, it is indispensable the concrete demonstration of the need for the measure for the application of criminal law and its consequent adequacy to the intended purposes ”.