In reading his vote on Tuesday (9) to condemn (PL) and seven others, the minister said that the former president was the leader of a criminal organization who acted violently against the authorities and tried the coup, defended the Apartisanship of the Supreme Court and expressed support to the colleague.
Dino also presented a caveat about former ministers Augusto Heleno and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira and former director of ABIN (Brazilian Intelligence Agency) Alexandre Ramagem-who, according to the minister, is less evidence about participation in the plot in the final months of the Bolsonaro government.
It was the second vote of the first class of the court in the trial on the attempted coup d’état, presented after the vote of Moraes, rapporteur of the case.
Read below some of the main phrases of Dino’s vote.
Bolsonaro and other defendants
The minister stated in his vote that Bolsonaro and Walter Braga Netto, former minister of the Civil House and vice in the former president’s plate in 2022, led the criminal organization, but other defendants had less important participation.
Jair Bolsonaro was conditioned as a dominant figure in the criminal organization. He and Braga Netto occupy this function. They had mastery of all the events narrated in the process
It is not a divergence itself, but a difference that I advance in the eminent rapporteur [Moraes]. Regarding defendants Jair Bolsonaro and Braga Netto, there is no doubt that the culpability is quite high. And therefore, dosimetry must be congruent with the dominant role they played. Likewise, I say that reprobability, culpability is high in relation to Almir Garnier, Anderson Torres and Mauro Cid, and for ICD there are benefits related to award -winning collaboration. However, and this is the difference for the reflection of the peers, in relation to Paulo Sérgio [Nogueira]Augusto Heleno and Alexandre Ramagem, I consider that there is a minor participation
Separationism
Dino said the trial does not have the Armed Forces target and actually lends itself to the reflection of the set of state institutions to remain exempt and apartidal.
This judgment is not a trial of the Armed Forces. National sovereignty requires strong, equipped, unique and autonomous
It is not normal that every 20 years we have attempted or rupture events of the constitutional fabric. So, I believe that, beyond far beyond the criminal judgment of us, there is no doubt that the considerations contained in the denunciation, the defenses, the trial, must be reflected from the set of state institutions so that they remain exempt and apartisan
The camps on the gates of the barracks have passed. And I hope they will never happen again, including the result of the general preventive function of criminal law. So as I hope no military will go to partisan convescotes using the uniform, for example, to weave foolish considerations to such or what political position
In defense of the Supreme Court, Dino stated that the court has already judged politicians of all political guidelines and cited a case in which Lula (PT), who was responsible for indicating it in 2023 the vacancy he currently occupies, had a habeas corpus denied in 2018.
The Supreme has already judged politicians of all party-ideological positions. The other day judged the monthly, and that was an ordinary fact in the Supreme Trajectory. This court has denied habeas corpus to the current president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and it seems that in a club approach, which I regret that law professionals sometimes add, when the football referee marks the penalty for my team, he is the best in the world. If he marks to the other team, he becomes the worst in the world. Only the referee is the same and the rules the same
VIOLENCE
In his vote, Dino stated that the investigation showed that the attempted coup d’état was not only considered, placed in notebooks, but was accompanied by violent “executing acts.
There was a violent invasion of the Esplanade [dos Ministérios]. People arrived in the three powers’ square because they faced the police, was in the file. And there is no way to face the police except violently. I don’t know any affair in the literature where protesters arrived for police and said ‘please, I will break this police siege and brought flowers and chocolates and chocolates’ and the police open the siege
The name of the plan was not green and yellow Bible, it was green and yellow dagger, the camps were not in church doors. I have a deep religious faith, I entered here in the Supreme with Dec Saints, I have more than 50 now, because I need them, but I think if you have the pacifist intent … [Se] You have an irresignation, you go to Mass, go to worship, or maybe even camp at the church door. But no, the camps were at the door of barracks. And I know it prays in the barracks, but especially in the barracks there are rifles, machine guns, tanks. So violence is inherent in all the narrative in the file. Not complying with court orders is a violence
Moraes and Supreme
Dino used his vote to also express support for colleague Alexandre de Moraes, criticized for an alleged inquisitor stance as a rapporteur of the process and reached by sanctions by the US government after articulation of pockets with the Donald Trump government.
Dino also countered comments from pockets that Moraes would be a dictator-who made the criticism more recently was the governor of São Paulo, Tarcisio de Freitas (Republicans-SP).
The judge, said Minister Alexandre, is not a fern. I found a very friendly and poetic allusion. A legal fern. Also because the fern is a fragile plant. And I thought, therefore, that it reveals their characteristics, contrary to what they say. So it’s a human plant, I would say. Between quotes, of course. It is a humanized plant. Live in the homes, in the gardens
I am amazed at someone imagining that someone comes to the Supreme and will be intimated with tweet. Will people believe that a foreign government tweet will change a trial in the Supreme? Does anyone imagine that a credit card or Mickey will change Julgamengo in the Supreme? [Após Moraes dizer ‘ou o Pateta’] Goofy appears most often in these events all
We are here doing what is up to us, doing our duty, this is not judicial activism, it is not tyranny, it is not dictatorship. On the contrary, it is a statement of democracy that Brazil built under the pall of the 1988 Constitution
There is no reason to believe that the Supreme is composed of judges who want to practice revenge or be dictators, because it is not the tradition of the Supreme. And who arrives here, comes with their heritage of experiences, with their career, but comes with a duty inscribed in the weight of institutionality. We know the size of this chair and no one is here to bring into this high tradition of the Supreme
