The judgment that runs in First Class of the Supreme Court (STF) and that can condemn the former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) will end this week.
From this Tuesday (9), the ministers will begin their votes, or not requesting the condemnation of each of the members of Nucleus 1 of the inquiry that investigates the existence of a coup plan in the country, to be instituted after the election of 2022.
a PGR (Attorney General’s Office) He asked for his conviction for five different crimes:
- Armed criminal organization;
- attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law;
- coup d’etat;
- Damage qualified by violence and serious threat against the union’s assets, and with considerable damage to the victim; and
- deterioration of listed assets.
If added to the maximum penalties for each of the crimes for which Bolsonaro is responding, the former MANDHERNER. This dosimetry will be calculated at the end of the trial.
Criminal lawyer and master’s degree in Criminal Procedure from USP (University of São Paulo) Anderson Lopes explains that, as the defense of the former president and all other defendants may present appeals, there will not be an immediate consequence in the event that the first class of the Supreme Court decides to convict.
If the decision of the magistrates is not unanimous, for example, lawyers may present – when the conviction is submitted to the STF plenary that may reevaluate the point on which there was divergence.
If the decision is unanimous, it will be up to the defenses to declare embargoes that, according to Lopes, serve only to clarify possible “obscurities, omissions or contradiction of the judgment”, but without changing the conviction.
30 -year sentence “is not natural”
Last week, during oral defense support, former President Jair Bolsonaro’s lawyers claimed that.
“Penalty of 30 years is not natural. What is happening is, a thesis brought by the Federal Police, the Federal Prosecutor, is to bring to something that speaks of accidents, the murder of people, and on January 8th. That’s it, it is these two parts that bring. (…) so serious, and there is no proof,” said Celso Vilardi.
According to him,
“The president, whom I will show carefully, dealing with the issue of the draft, he did not attack the Democratic Rule of Law. (…) There is no single proof and as I will point out here, with all due respect,” added Vilardi.
