Former minister of the Institutional Security Cabinet (GSI) in the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government was sentenced to 21 years in prison and ordered to pay an 84-day fine
The defense of the general, former minister of the Institutional Security Office (GSI) in the government (PL), presented this Monday (27) an appeal to the First Panel of the requesting the acquittal of the soldier and, alternatively, the reduction of the fine imposed upon conviction for participation in the attempted coup d’état. Heleno was sentenced to 21 years in prison and paid an 84-day fine, worth R$126,000, considering each day equivalent to one minimum wage. The defense requests that the amount be reduced to around R$21,000, arguing that the general is a “family breadwinner”, elderly and unable to work due to his health.
“The total amount of the sentence represents practically six months of his net salary, and such a sentence would leave him in a situation of misery”, say the lawyers, who ask that the STF consider the defendant’s real financial condition. The appeal is part of the motion for clarification, an instrument used to clarify omissions, contradictions or obscurities in the ruling of a trial. As a rule, this type of appeal does not reverse convictions, but defenders maintain that, in this case, the omissions highlighted have an infringing effect — which could, according to them, change the decision.
The defense claims that there was a restriction on the defense, due to the large volume of documents attached to the process and the reduced period for analysis. The lawyers claim that ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Flávio Dino, Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin were silent in not speaking out on the issue. “The votes are silent regarding the fact that the defense maintained that it was not possible to analyze the files given the large quantity of documents, the lack of a minimum cataloging and the short period available”, says the text of the appeal.
They also claim that there was selective inclusion of documents during the criminal investigation, which would have undermined the broad defense.
After analyzing the embargoes, it is still possible to present a second appeal of the same type, before the final judgment — a stage that marks the beginning of the execution of the sentence. As a last resort, the defense can also resort to a criminal review, used to challenge final convictions in exceptional situations.
*With information from Estadão Conteúdo
