The use of to impose sanctions against the minister is an abuse of law intentions and a misrepresentation of his original conception, says William Browder, a British financial executive who led the campaign for the approval of the law.
“Magnitsky law has been established to impose sanctions on serious human rights violators and people who are guilty of large-scale cleptocracy,” says Browder, referring to political regimes in which rulers and authorities use their position to illicitly enrich.
“It was not created to be used for political revenge. The current use of magnitsky law is purely political and does not address human rights issues to which it was originally elaborated. And as such is an abuse of law intentions,” the executive added in an interview with BBC News Brazil.
The use of the magnitsky law against Moraes was announced on Wednesday (30) by the US government, which justified the measure by stating that the minister would be responsible for “an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary arrests that violate human rights and politicized proceedings-enlightened against the former president (PL)”.
After the announcement, President Luiz Inacio da Silva (PT) sympathized with Moraes and said that the interference of the US government in Brazilian courts is “unacceptable.
Approved during the government of, in 2012, the magnitsky law was created to punish Russian authorities involved in the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who denounced a state corruption scheme and died in custody in Moscow.
CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, Browder was the largest foreign investor until 2005, when he was prohibited from entering the country and included in the Russian government’s black list as a “threat to national security.”
Magnitsky, who was Browder’s lawyer in Moscow, died in prison in 2009 after being charged with fiscal fraud and sentenced to 11 months in prison.
“So I went public to try to find a way to do justice for Sergei Magntsky,” recalls Browder.
He says that many of the people involved in the lawyer’s death profited with the crime and kept their money abroad.
Then Browder came up with the idea of freezing goods and banning these people’s trips to the US, which led to the creation of the law, later expanded to apply to human rights violators from other countries, beyond Russia.
For Browder, the use of Trump’s magnitsky law against Moraes can have serious consequences, compromising the integrity of the law and making it questionable in cases where it was legitimately applied.
But he also evaluates that there is great chances of the decision being reversed by the court, in the face of the blatant use of the law in disagreement with his original intention.
“I believe there are strong arguments for the decision to be annulled by the courts,” says Browder, who has two books published in Brazil: Blocking Order (2022) and Red Alert (2016), both launched by Editora Intrinseca.
“The law was not used as it was originally conceived. And there is the opportunity for this judge [Alexandre de Moraes] resort to the courts to reverse this. “
Check out the main excerpts of the interview below.
Why do you disagree with the use of the magnitsky law against judge Alexandre de Moraes?
Because the magnitsky law was established to impose sanctions on serious human rights violators and people who are guilty of large -scale cleptocracy [quando governantes e autoridades usam sua posição para enriquecer de forma corrupta].
It was not created to be used to solve political revenge.
The current use of magnitsky law is purely political and does not address the human rights issues for which it was originally elaborated. And as such, it is an abuse of the intentions of the magnitsky law.
You can explain a little more about the context of the creation of the law and its original intentions to Defend it?
Sergei Magnitsky was my Russian lawyer who discovered a major corruption scheme from the Russian government in 2008.
He exposed that. He witnessed against the officers involved. And in retaliation for doing so, he was arrested. He was systematically tortured in prison and was murdered at age 37 after 358 days of extreme torture.
The Russian government, including its own, closed in defense and refused to hold someone responsible for the murder.
So I went public to try to find a way to do justice for Sergei Magntsky.
And the way I decided to do justice was that many of the people involved in his murder were people who profited a lot with that murder and kept the money abroad.
And then I had the idea to freeze their goods and ban their trips to the United States. And I presented this to the Senators of the Republican Party and. And that was eventually approved. It is called Magnitsky Law and was approved by 92 votes to 4 in 2012.
Became a federal law during the government of President Obama. Since then, it has been expanded not only to Russia, but also to foreign human rights violators in other countries. And over the years, it has been used in several very important cases.
Can you give examples?
For example, the Chinese authorities who were involved in the Uiguur Genocide, who organized concentration camps in Xinjiang.
It was used against the Myanmar authorities involved in the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar.
It was used against security forces and individuals in Nicaragua who opened fire against peaceful student protesters.
It has been used in cases where there is clear, absolute and blunt evidence of human rights abuse, and has been used as a way for victims to obtain justice, which they would not do otherwise.
The current use of the United States magnitsky law against a judge involved in a prosecution against a former policy in which the United States has clearly said that they are annoyed because this former political is being sued, it is not an appropriate use of magnitsky law, and is a misrepresentation of its original intentions.
Is this the first time the law has been misused or has there been any prior occasion when it happened, what is your knowledge?
I have never seen the law being poorly used so far.
In your assessment, what are the consequences of this misuse of the law by the president?
Well, this simply compromises the integrity of the law. The law had immense credibility to embarrass people who did bad things.
And if it is suddenly being abused and used for political revenge, then it takes away the credibility of the other cases in which individuals suffered sanctions.
How do you feel personally about this current situation, having dedicated so much of your time and energy to this cause?
Overall, magnitsky law has not been passed only in the United States, but in 35 other countries around the world, and will remain one of the most important tools used for human rights victims.
But I find it disappointing for the United States to do this.
Is it possible that the sanctions imposed on Moraes under the magnitsky law are annulled, either by judicial means or a future administration after Trump’s?
I believe there are strong arguments for the decision to be annulled by the courts.
The law was not used as it was originally conceived. And there is the opportunity for this judge [Alexandre de Moraes] Resort to the courts to reverse this.
Has there been any reversal before?
It was not reversed before because there was no abuse of the magnitsky law before. Everyone who suffered sanctions previously suffered sanctions properly.
And do you believe this can be done in the US or in international courts?
It is an American law and can be annulled by the United States courts. And the judiciary is an independent power of the executive branch.
So, regardless of what the president [Donald Trump] And your government want, if it is clear that he [Moraes] It was unfairly punished with sanctions and that the law was abused, so it has legal means to reverse it.
After its publication in X by criticizing the use of the magnitsky law against Moraes, many supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro criticize him for allegedly not understanding the Brazilian context well enough to comment. How do you respond to these criticisms?
Well, first of all, most people who respond are not real people.
As you know, Elon Musk, owner of X, is a great critic of the judge [Alexandre de Moraes] because the judge tried to calm him down.
So I can’t believe these people are really criticizing me. I have no answer to bots that make false statements.
This text was originally published.
