The defense of deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) states that the decision taken by the Chamber of Deputies, in the early hours of this Thursday (11), not to impeach the arrested parliamentarian must be taken into consideration by the Italian courts, which will analyze the extradition request made by Brazil.
Zambelli has been imprisoned since the end of July in Italy, the last place where she took shelter after being convicted by the Federal Supreme Court in the case that investigated the hacker invasion of the National Justice Council system.
“If the highest political authority in Brazil states that Congresswoman Zambelli suffered injustice due to her political activities, how can the Court of Appeal in Rome not take this into consideration?”, asked lawyer Pieremilio Sammarco to Folha de S.Paulo.
Continues after advertising
The Chamber decided to maintain Zambelli’s mandate by rejecting, by 227 votes against 170, the parliamentarian’s impeachment. To confirm the loss of the mandate, 257 votes were needed.
The decision reversed the STF’s conviction, which ordered her to vacate her position after considering her involved in the invasion of the CNJ system with the help of hacker Walter Delgatti Neto.
The plenary vote contradicted the recommendation of the Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ), which had suggested the impeachment with the support of deputies from the center. In 2022, Zambelli was the most voted woman in the country for the Chamber, with more than 946 thousand votes.
The current leader of the Workers’ Party in the Chamber, Lindbergh Farias, stated in the early hours of this Thursday that he will file a writ of mandamus with the STF against the decision. Lindbergh questions the maintenance of the mandate, arguing that the Legislative House should not have opened Zambelli’s situation to a vote, but merely determined the loss of the mandate.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is clear. In Minister Alexandre de Moraes’ decision in sentencing Congresswoman Carla Zambelli, he cites article 55 of the Constitution, which determines that the Board of the Chamber must promote the removal. We have been saying this for six months. It shouldn’t even have gone to the CCJ”, he explained.
