With minister Cármen Lúcia’s vote recorded this Saturday morning, the 15th, the First Panel of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) decided, unanimously, to receive the complaint against deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) for obstruction in the process of the coup plot.
The deadline for analysis ends on the 25th. Until then, ministers can change their vote, request a review or take the case to the plenary – which has not happened.
As rapporteur, Minister Alexandre de Moraes was the first to present the vote. He defended the opening of criminal proceedings against Eduardo and was accompanied by Flávio Dino and Cristiano Zanin.
Continues after advertising
For Moraes, the complaint presented “sufficient and reasonable evidence of authorship” and exposed the “seriousness” of the deputy’s threats to Brazilian authorities, “notably the ministers of the Federal Supreme Court”.
The minister highlighted that the “coercion strategy” was “abundantly” exposed on the deputy’s social networks.
Moraes considered that the “serious threat” materialized through the articulation and obtaining of sanctions from the United States government, with the increase in export tariffs to Brazil, suspension of visas for Brazilian authorities and the application of the effects of the Magnitsky Law.
Furthermore, in the minister’s assessment, the deputy acted on behalf of private interests and sought to “create an environment of intimidation for the authorities responsible for the trial” of the former president and for a possible amnesty project for the crimes of January 8th.
Virtual plenary
Moraes was the only one who presented a written vote. In the virtual plenary, only the rapporteurs – or ministers who initiate divergence – are obliged to justify the basis of their position in writing.
Continues after advertising
The ministers analyze, in the virtual plenary, whether the complaint from the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) meets the requirements to trigger criminal proceedings – what is called in legal jargon “just cause for criminal action”.
It is verified whether the PGR proved the materiality of the crimes, that is, demonstrated that they occurred and described the context. The merits of the accusations will only be analyzed at the end of the process.
The STF ministers consider the deputy’s campaign an attempt at intimidation and have already given strong messages that attacks against national sovereignty will not be tolerated.
Continues after advertising
In virtual mode, the trial remains open for a week for ministers to register their votes on the STF website. There is no real-time debate, whether in person or via videoconference.
Possible extradition
With the opening of a criminal case, the STF has the option of requesting the deputy’s extradition even before the merits of the charges are judged.
Continues after advertising
Extradition may be requested not only to serve a sentence, but also for the purpose of investigating the case.
The procedures would depend, however, on the collaboration of the Donald Trump government, which sanctioned STF ministers. Visas were canceled and financial restrictions imposed under the Magnitsky Act.
PGR complaint
Continues after advertising
The Attorney General’s Office denounced Eduardo and blogger Paulo Figueiredo for articulating sanctions against the STF in the United States.
According to the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, the campaign aimed to pressure ministers not to condemn former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) for plotting the coup. Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and 3 months in the process.
For the attorney general, it was proven that Eduardo and Paulo Figueiredo used contacts in the Donald Trump government to “embarrass the jurisdictional performance” of the Federal Supreme Court.
What Eduardo Bolsonaro’s defense says
The deputy did not appoint a lawyer in the process and, therefore, is represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU).
In Eduardo’s previous defense, the DPU asked the First Panel of the STF to reject the complaint due to “atypical conduct”, that is, because there was no crime.
Public defender Antônio Ezequiel Inácio Barbosa states in his request that the complaint from the Attorney General’s Office “confuses political demonstration with procedural coercion”.
The line of defense is that Eduardo Bolsonaro’s demonstrations, and his campaign in the United States to sanction Brazilian authorities, are part of the political debate and the exercise of the parliamentary mandate.
The defender also maintained that the crime of coercion has as a requirement “violence or serious threat” and that the complaint does not describe violent acts by Eduardo nor does it indicate how he would have effective influence to influence the decisions of the American government.
