Henry Borel’s father, Leniel Borelcriticized the jury’s decision that granted a judicial pardon to Monique Medeiros after the trial ended in the early hours of this Thursday (4), at the II Rio de Janeiro Jury Court.
In an interview with CNN BrazilLeniel stated that he left the court “revolted” by the outcome of the case. “There were two adults and a child there. And two adults and a dead child came out,” he said.
The jury sentenced him to 43 years, 9 months and 20 days in prison for Henry’s death. Already Monique received a ruling that the application of the sentence was removed even after the crime was recognized.
During the interview, Leniel stated that . “What happened in that apartment? That jury was not presented. Monique, at the very least, was silent”, he declared.
Henry’s father also questioned the legal understanding applied in the case. “She was convicted of manslaughter, and can she have a judicial pardon for an intentional crime against life? Can an intentional crime against life have a judicial pardon?” he stated.
Judicial pardon and effects of the decision
O judicial pardon is an institute provided for in Brazilian criminal legislation, which authorizes the judge to stop applying the penalty even after recognizing the commission of a criminal offense.
Although it removed the application of the penalty, the sentence did not eliminate Monique’s criminal liability.
The Sentencing Council dismissed the accusation of intentional homicide and promoted the downgrading of the charge to culpable homicide. Due to judicial pardon, the conviction no longer produces enforceable effects, ending the state’s punitive claim in relation to the convicted person.
When delivering the sentence, the judge understood that the personal and social consequences suffered by Monique over the last five years exceeded the purpose that would be achieved by the criminal penalty.
In the reasoning, the magistrate highlighted the loss of her only son, the national repercussion of the case, the attacks suffered during the period she was imprisoned and the intense public scrutiny to which it has been subjected since the death of Henry Borel.
According to the judge, the accused was the target of a disproportionate social reaction, enhanced by expectations culturally attributed to the maternal role. Despite ending the trial in the first instance, the sentence does not prevent the filing of appeals by the parties.
What the defenses say
In a statement, released this Thursday, Monique’s defense stated that she received the decision “with respect”. Read in full:
“The lawyers Florence Rosa and Hugo dos Santos Novais, who work in the defense of Monique Medeiros da Costa e Silva, receive with respect the decision made by the Sentencing Council, highlighting that the Jury Court constitutes one of the most important constitutional guarantees of the Democratic State of Law, with the sovereignty of verdicts being a principle expressly guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of 1988.
They also highlight that the trial carried out was guided by the analysis of the evidence produced in the procedural instruction, within the rules that govern the Popular Jury procedure. Throughout the entire process, Monique’s defense maintained that she did not commit any aggression against her son and that her biggest mistake was not being able to realize, in time, the violence that she and her son were suffering. Henry’s death represents an irreparable tragedy for everyone involved in this case.
The process also invites society to reflect on the need to evolve the understanding of phenomena related to domestic, psychological and gender-based violence, abusive relationships and the excessive exposure of women as victims, as the victim is not always able to immediately identify the signs of the violence to which they are subjected, especially when inserted into complex cycles of emotional manipulation and affective dependence. Finally, they reiterate their absolute respect for the memory of Henry Borel Medeiros, the families involved, democratic institutions and the Jury Court, recognizing the constitutional importance of the sovereignty of verdicts as an expression of popular participation in the administration of Justice.”
