The minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) can trigger international cuts and commissions to contest the way by the road. The measure, however, would have slow progress and, even with positive resolution for the magistrate, would be poorly effective in the evaluation of experts heard by Sheet.
They comment two more possible ways of contestation for the judge: the diplomatic and the activation of the American judiciary, each also with obstacles that can make a decision favorable to the magistrate.
Moraes was the target of the magnitsky law on July 30. The US government claimed that the judge acts against freedom of expression and pursues () and allies.
The former president is investigating the attempted coup of 2022. With the possibility increasingly close to a conviction, allies of the former Mandanician-the federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP)-intensified attacks on Moraes, who is rapporteur in the process.
The Magnitsky Law provides for economic sanctions to serious human rights violators or accused of corruption. Application against the magistrate generated, the global supporter of the law, on possible inadequacy.
Raphael Rocha, Professor of Law at UFJF (Federal University of Juiz de Fora) and PhD in International Law at UERJ (State University of Rio de Janeiro), glimpses two possibilities for contestation of law in the international judiciary.
The first of these is via the inter -American Human Rights System, consisting of a commission and a court.
The Inter -American Court has judgment power, but could not be triggered by Brazil because the US does not recognize its jurisdiction.
It would therefore be the commission’s way, but a decision of it has only symbolic effect, says Rocha. In addition, a result would probably come after years.
Another obstacle to the commission’s activation is the fact that it requires the exhaustion of internal instances – this scenario, the judiciary of the United States -, before the acceptance of the case, points out the expert.
The other international scenario envisioned by Rocha is the activation of the CIJ (International Court of Justice), the main judicial body of the (United Nations).
Here, Brazil could file a lawsuit claiming that the United States try to violate principles of international law and the country’s sovereignty by applying magnitsky in Moraes, as the magistrate was sanctioned by his STF performance.
The result would generate a binding decision, but a favorable response would probably be barred by the US government, which has veto power in the UN. Therefore, this decision would also be, in practice, symbolic, besides slow.
On August 4, the CNDH (National Council of Human Rights) on sanctions. According to Rocha, any decision favorable to the minister would also have only symbolic and low effectiveness.
In addition to the International Via, a contestation of Magnitsky could take place via diplomacy or by the US judiciary, the latter’s suggestion of the global supporter of the William Browder Law.
This way may be the most promising in the interpretation of Fabio Andrade, political scientist and professor of the ESPM International Relations course. A by the Lula government (PT).
Andrade says that it is possible to hire a legal office in the country to present to court the argument of misuse of the law. The problem in this would be the fact that the Supreme Court of that country has a conservative tendency.
“It may happen that Moraes win at lower instances and have his decision revised in the Supreme Court,” explains Andrade.
The bet would also be “risky” and “costly” in the expert’s interpretation. “This is a path that also involves risks, but it would be more effective than looking for the Inter -American Commission.”
Another possible way is diplomatic, also with its mishaps. According to Andrade, not only, but all traditional diplomacy has had a hard time reversing white house decisions.
Still, this is a possible way, plays Elaini Silva, doctor in international law from USP and professor at PUC-SP.
Silva states, however, that the imbroglio with the sanction to Moraes comes from a previous problem about the general legitimacy of the law, which has been applied to depending on the taste of the United States.
“The law itself is problematic. Because it is not up to the United States to be the judge of the world. The United States is not part of human rights protection systems and there are unilateral internal measures that apply as they want. As they adopt this type of action, it is obvious that it will make room for misuse. [a Lei Magnitsky].”
