The classification of executions of the coup plot made by the Minister of (Supreme Federal Court) during the judgment of the case divides experts heard by Sheet.
The magistrate voted on Tuesday (9) for the condemnation of all defendants of the so-called crucial core, including the former president ().
Part of the experts says that the minister focused on not isolating the to evaluate the context in which the criminal organization judged in the court would have acted. Others, however, say that the magistrate’s interpretation has questionable points.
As a rapporteur of the criminal action, Moraes was the first to vote for the trial that can condemn Bolsonaro more than and increase his ineligibility, which currently runs until 2030.
According to the speech, the minister also voted in favor of the conviction of the defendants, considering acts of execution in the plot, subject to punishment.
The result of the trial is expected to come until this Friday (12), after the votes of the ministers, and.
Moraes shared the perception of PGR (Attorney General of the Republic) that the attempt to coup came from one that was already the execution of the coup and or serious threat, even before its culmination on January 8, 2023.
Classifying such actions as a stage of execution of crimes is important because Brazilian law does not provide for punishment for the preparation phase in the crimes of attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and.
Bolsonaro is tried by these two crimes, as well as armed criminal organization, qualified damage and deterioration of heritage.
Moraes highlighted as the group’s first enforceable act the use of public agencies to monitor political opponents in order to pay attention against the judiciary and delegitimize the polls. It incorporated other actions, such as Lives with attacks on the Electoral Court made by Jair Bolsonaro, the draft coup and the use of the Federal Highway Police (PRF) to prevent the vote of President Lula (PT) voters in 2022.
For criminalist lawyer Ricardo Martins, the choice of the magistrate seeks to highlight the stability of the alleged criminal organization. He also says that the interpretation proposed by the minister helps to understand the general context of the plot, not only isolated facts.
“The fragmented reading of the facts could convey the impression that the conduct attributed to the former president and the other defendants would not constitute criminal offenses, such as.”
Criminal lawyer Ana Carolina Barranquera states that the minister follows the construction of the PGR that there was the beginning of the execution and that these acts culminated in the invasion of the three powers on January 8.
“The lives, the meetings, the questioning of the electronic ballot boxes and the demonstrations attacking the STF were an important part of the plot,” he says. “There is still the operation of green and yellow dagger and the draft blow, which explains that there was really a huge orchestrated movement to overlap democracy.”
Juliana Izar Segalla, PhD in Constitutional Law from PUC-SP and professor at UENP (State University of Northern Paraná), says Moraes tried, with the vote, to draw attention to the acts concatenated by PGR.
She understands that the minister wanted to be didactic so that the general public understands the grounds of the decision, an action considered important by a judgment of social interest. Segalla agrees with the minister in the classification of acts as executions.
Welington Arruda, Master in Law and Justice from IDP (Brazilian Institute of Teaching, Development and Research), says that the minister’s proposal is adequate “in part”.
“It is legally defective to speak of executory acts before January 8 when there is diversion of force bodies, such as the PRF to inhibit vote, activation of the military command chain with draft presentation and plans to eliminate authorities,” he says.
He states, however, that “it is not acceptable to label as execution lives, political meetings or diplomatic meetings, without proof of direct and immediate nexus with the use of strength.”
For Lucas Miranda, criminal lawyer and professor of criminal law at Faminas (Faculty of Mines), the minister’s interpretation of considering all 13 acts as executions is a technical impropriety.
He states that acts of monitoring cited in the plan are, according to the doctrine, classified as preparatory acts. Proof of this would be the fact that the defendants were not accused of attempted murder, even though a plan was discovered to kill authorities, according to Miranda.
