New president of IDDD (Institute for the Defense of the Right to Defense), Priscila Pamela Santos, 43, sees parallels between the Master case and the . In addition to the size, the lawyer cites with concern selective leaks and processes brought to the public stage.
Santos says that the exposure could put pressure on courts and undermine guarantees such as the presumption of innocence: “We blame certain people without them having the right to due process,” he says.
The first black woman to preside over the institute founded in 2000 by the criminalist and former Minister of Justice (1935-2014), she also recalls cases she suffered throughout her life.
One of the most memorable occurred when she was talking to her husband about politics in a taxi. When he finished speaking, he heard from the driver: “After she left the slave quarters, she still thinks she can talk.”
No, Márcio [Thomaz Bastos] says: “Never, except in some periods of the dictatorial regime, has the right of defense been violated so much.” Almost 26 years later, are we in a worse or better moment than that?
When Márcio founded [o IDDD]there was an expectation that we would move forward so that violations of the right to defense would no longer be so commonplace. Today, unfortunately, we continue to experience moments of much resurgence. The challenges remain, perhaps even greater.
We have seen a worsening of procedural guarantees and working conditions. Mrs. Do you believe that Brazil could follow the same path, depending on the results of the elections?
Extremist governments tend to use the public security agenda to undermine constitutional guarantees, saying that this is a solution. As in , this has been propagated in other countries as a model for repressing crime.
We deeply hope that, whatever the outcome of the elections, it will not result in such atrocities against the people.
We have already seen the leak of confidential data, mainly involving the case of . Like Mrs. and IDDD see this type of leak?
The leak is problematic and reckless. We experienced this very clearly at the time of Lava Jato, when there were selective leaks. This provokes a public trial and, as has happened in other major operations, the undermining of guarantees and rights, especially the presumption of innocence.
We blame certain people without them having had the right to due process, precisely because [vazamentos] they condition political and public opinions that end up pressuring the courts to express themselves in such a way.
There is a lot of comparison between the Master case and Lava Jato, as Mrs. just did. To what extent is this comparison possible?
Several, starting with the discussions that are being held within the public environment, and not in the process: about who is the competent judge to handle the process, the issue of access to the records, selective leaks.
Cases of such grandeur and complexity are widely reported. This enables active public participation in cases that concern exclusively the Judiciary and the parties.
When we bring a process to the public stage, guarantees tend to be violated. Just as it happened in Lava Jato and , I also see it happening in the case of Banco Master.
Mrs. She is the first black woman to assume the presidency of IDDD. How do you feel about that?
I have been at IDDD for over 20 years, the criminal lawyer was born here. Being the first black woman president of this institution is recognition of all the work, of love, of dedication. It’s the chance for many other lawyers, women, black or other black lawyers to understand that this is possible.
Have you ever suffered any type of case of racism in court or in a forum?
Countless times. When he took white women to be heard, the clerk or the police officer himself would say to the client: “Doctor, how are you?” Then: “No, I’m the lawyer.” That look of strangeness, because it’s not possible that it’s this accused, and not this one. One day I was talking about this to a blonde, green-eyed client. She doubted it, she thought I saw racism where it didn’t exist. The clerk arrived and addressed her: “Hi doctor, how are you?”
Mrs. cited having suffered racism outside of more open legal environments. Can you tell?
Of all the ones I’ve been through, the one that stuck with me the most happened in a taxi. I was with my husband, talking about politics. I just gave my opinion, and the driver said: “After she left the slave quarters, she still thinks she can talk.”
I froze, I couldn’t react. My husband asked: “What did he say? Did he say something about slave quarters?” I just said, “I want to get off.” We got out of the car, and I started to feel sick and cry. I vomited, it was a horror show. The taxi driver left.
Processing all of that took a while. No one is ever prepared to live one like this.
Mrs. Are you looking for a position at or something along those lines?
I dream every day of being a criminal lawyer. It’s my greatest achievement, it’s where I find myself. I went into law to be a criminal lawyer. That’s my dream.
Nothing else?
No. It’s curious how they say “nothing else”, as if it weren’t much. My mother says: “How come you don’t want to be a judge, how come you don’t want to be a judge?” I rowed a tide to become a criminal lawyer. That’s a lot.
X-RAY | Priscila Pamela Santos, 43
She is a lawyer, with a master’s degree in human rights from USP, a specialist in justice, gender and women’s human rights from the same institution and a postgraduate degree in economic criminal law from FGV Direito SP. He was president of the OAB-SP Criminal and Penitentiary Policy Commission. Currently, she is an alternate state counselor for the Order.
