Lawyers Association calls for transparency on partnerships and detailing of commitments signed with the Supreme Popular Court of the Asian country
The, a combat -oriented association of what they consider authoritarian practices in the judiciary to the Supreme Court (STF) requesting the complete disclosure of the cooperation agreements signed with the Supreme Popular Court of China. According to the document, confidentiality contradicts the constitutional principle of advertising and ACCESS TO INFORMATION LAW.
The lawyers’ letter cites recent meetings between Brazilian and Chinese magistrates, including the visit of Minister Luis Roberto Barroso to China in July 2024, and Minister Edson Fachin in April. At the time, the Brazilian celebrated the good relationship between the 2 countries in the legal area.
The document also questions statements made during official events that compared the functioning of the Brazilian and Chinese courts. “We cannot afford to close our eyes to the notorious fact that the eastern country practices censorship and repression of political opponents, in counterpoint to the democratic environment that should prevail in Brazil.”says the organization.
In June, Minister Gilmar Mendes even said that all members of the Brazilian Court admire the Chinese regime led by Xi Jinping. The speech was during the trial that analyzes the responsibility of digital platforms for content published by users.
Watch (1min1s):
According to Lexum, there is no legal justification for maintaining full confidentiality on agreements, since only information essential to the security of society or state can be restricted. The association calls for full access to texts, including reciprocal obligations, costs, benefits and termination conditions.
O Poder360 contacted the STF for clarification about the partnership, but received no response until the publication of this report.
STF and “Chinese STF”
The Supreme Popular Court (STP) is China’s maximum judiciary and is responsible for making decisions that have national effects, as well as supervising lower court courts. It is the equivalent of the STF of Brazil.
The comparison with the Brazilian Court ends in the sphere of the power of its decisions, as the configuration of the Chinese court is quite different from its Brazilian counterpart.
An example is that STP leaders have different attributions from STF ministers and the Chinese court has a strong influence from the PCP (Communist Party of China), while Brazil’s Supreme Court is independent of the Brazilian Executive Power.
In all, the STP has about 400 judges, which focus on the tens of thousands of cases that reach the Chinese Superior Court every year. Some cases considered to be most important should be chancelled by the Judicial Committee.
The STP acts in the first instance in cases of its jurisdiction or in cases that is deemed competent to evaluate. He is the appellate instance against sentences of the higher popular courts, the cuts of 2nd hierarchical position in the Chinese judicial model.
All death penalties defined in China must be subjected to STP for revision and approval.
It is not possible to appeal from an STP decision. In some cases, the defendant may claim that there were evidence or other serious errors in the case and request a new trial. The Attorney’s Office needs to agree with the defense’s arguments.
In the Chinese system, there is the central committee that guides the application of laws, while it is up to hundreds of judges within the STP to execute them.
