The decision in which the minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) of the former president () generates disagreements between experts consulted by Sheet.
Among those who criticize the decision, issued on Monday (21), there is an understanding that the “prohibition of social network use” is very expansive.
The main discussion is if posts made by third parties, without any evidence of collusion with Bolsonaro, could be characterized as a violation of this restriction by the former president. There is also criticism that the decision does not bring detail or minimal elements to substantiate the alleged non -compliance.
Those who defend the decision see the measure as necessary in the face of that the minister would already have elements to decree pre -trial detention.
On Friday (18), Moraes determined several alternative precautionary measures to arrest against Bolsonaro, such as use and prohibition of use “social networks, directly or through third parties”.
After saying, in order on Monday, that this restriction included transmissions, or relay of interviews “in any of the third party’s social networking platforms,” Moraes summoned the defense of the former president to provide “clarification on the breach of the precautionary measures imposed, under penalty of immediate decree of the defendant’s arrest”. Moraes’s decision reproduces five posts, including one from the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo and two from (PL-SP), which is also investigated.
The episode released referred to journalists’ speech, when he showed off the anklet to photographers, saying that the device was a “symbol of maximum humiliation.” Videos of the former president’s statement were published in the profiles of supporters and opponents.
On Tuesday, Bolsonaro’s defense stated in the process that he and asked Moraes to clarify whether the former president can grant interviews.
Criminal lawyer and vice president of IASP (São Paulo Lawyers Institute), Marina Coelho Araújo, evaluates that there would be no basis to arrest Bolsonaro for breach of precautionary measures.
“He can go to Congress because he is not forbidden – he is forbidden to go to the embassies. And he is not forbidden to speak to a journalist,” she says. “The fact that the journalist put this on the social network is not, in my view, use on the social network indirectly by Bolsonaro. It is news that is being given by a newspaper.”
For her, Moraes’ decisions until this second are giving a very expansive interpretation of this ban on using social networks and that it should be understood as saying only Bolsonaro. “What he [Moraes] It is forcing here is Bolsonaro not to use third people. For example, I use a social network account of my friend or the other to make some publication. This he can’t do. “
Of the precautionary measures against Bolsonaro, she sees the obligation to wear an electronic anklet as well applied. But it criticizes the restriction on networking, as it evaluates that the process in processing the coup plot is not at risk.
Criminal lawyer Hugo Leonardo, former president of the Institute of Defense Defense (IDDD) and member of the prerogative lawyers group, argues that Bolsonaro’s performance of what he understands to be attacks to the Court would already justify an even more serious measure, which would be the decree of pre-trial detention.
He generally understands that only the precautions provided for by law could be applied in the criminal sphere. Nevertheless, it argues that, in the case of Bolsonaro, the restriction on the use of networks would be correct-criminal on the other hand, the prohibition of contact between the former president and his son Eduardo.
“This is a case whose commitment of the crime has been precisely through these devices of mobilizing public opinion of truth, so we can not displace the way this crime was committed and has been discussed in the STF with the environment by which these actors act,” he says.
Leonardo argues that posts from the press of Bolsonaro’s passage through the House did not violate as he was imposed by Moraes, but the very scene that occurred. “There was a scene built, he raises his pants, shows his anklet and speaks of supreme humiliation, saying that this is not an attack on the Supreme, I don’t know what it is anymore.”
Francisco Monteiro Rocha, a lawyer and professor of Criminal Law at UFPR (Federal University of Paraná), sees with concern about Moraes’s decision threatening the former president of prison, including even the press.
“I think this is very foolhal,” he says. “So anyone who says anything about Bolsonaro at any time will make him arrested?”
For Rocha, a post, for example, of the investigated wife with a video he would be a case with greater possibility of understanding that there is a use of a third party network, as was vetoed by Moraes initially. He evaluates that the cases cited in the decision do not seem to be “sufficiently backed by minimum evidence.”
“It is very difficult for you to establish this nexus of the deceit, the desire to make your word reverberated by third parties without not bumping into the right to manifest, the right to give interviews,” he argues.
Lawyer Tatiana Stoco, who is a teacher of law and criminal procedure at Insper, sees the decision of Moraes this Monday as little specific.
From the decision of Moraes earlier, she understands that, if there is only relay by any vehicle without articulation of the former president for this disclosure, this could not justify a pre-trial detention. For, she says, the precautionary measure is personally directed to the one who is investigated.
Another case, she says, would be the situation in which Bolsonaro makes articulations to promote relay, but addendum that Moraes’s decision does not bring about it.
“If it is demonstrated in the case that he [Bolsonaro] It is articulating for this, that he is forbidden, he is breaking that ban, “she says.
