Condemned by coup d’état, violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, criminal organization and damage, and members of the summit of his government will face high penalties and closed regime.
The first class of the Federal Supreme Court acknowledged that the facts presented by the Attorney General’s Office were proved and that, concatenated and chained, they represented the undeniable practice of serious crimes provided for in the Democratic State Defense Law.
The votes of the ministers, EE of the minister, were unison in affirming the profusion and diversity of evidence to corroborate the accusations and the participation of the defendants in the crimes, each in its own way.
The conviction was guided by the technical-legal debate of the categories of Criminal Law, as well as the inevitable context of political crisis and defense of democracy. The, with Tocaia and Monitoring to murder authorities, with registration and confession made, numerous times, by the defendants themselves, of acts aimed at the military, gave no room for any denial of events.
On the other hand, only the overdue vote of, which contradicted the evidence of the case. Its reasons will serve as fuel for extremists, but are fragile and will not have legal consequences. The dissent of only one vote does not allow the use of plenary appeal; By the court’s understanding, two absolute votes would be required.
Admittedly, we are facing a criminal action, managed by the criminal procedural rules without complications, with specific defendants, accused of acts determined in time. However, there are meanings that extravate the barriers of the process. In a way, our past was cleared in this judgment.
There is no doubt that this is one of the most relevant trials in our history. Its unique importance lies in many ways: in the ability to judge serious crimes committed by the most powerful people in the country; In the exhibition of the bowels of an attempt to blow, when we still live with so many confidentials; In court brought to scammers for the first time, when the others are still buried by the unconstitutional amnesty; In the exercise of judicial independence, even in the face of a very serious attempted coercion against the court and its ministers made, on order ,.
But the greatest merit of this judgment is to allow the construction of a democratic future. The 1988 Constitution, a landmark of the dictatorship, incorporated some democratic safeguards and sought to vaccinate new scams. It was the Constitution that required the criminalization of crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law; who has incubated the Supreme of the mission of judging powerful who distort his mandates; which protected pluralism, human rights, democracy. It is also the Constitution that refutes the possibility of amnesty for a blow.
Constitutional safeguards were triggered and functioned. Voters rejected an authoritarian project, criminals were investigated, reported and tried. Political leaders have come together in defense of institutions with the violent outbreak of January 8. The Constitution needs institutions and people willing to protect it. To build a democratic future, there is no more room for scammers.
