The ministers of the (Superior Court of Justice) must use the latest judgments on harassment cases carried out by the (National Council of Justice) to support the analysis of the case. The magistrate is the target of at least two complaints.
Court ministers received this Friday (10) the report of the internal investigation opened to address the issue. The conclusion was to open disciplinary proceedings against Buzzi. Next Tuesday (14), a court session should confirm the initiation of the procedure.
The most recent session in which the topic was addressed by the CNJ took place on March 3, when the maximum sentence was confirmed for a judge for harassment and persecution of public servants in a case in the Federal District.
Ministers from the STJ followed the debate and circulated the video of the session and comments on the approach given by the counselors.
At the CNJ, members have been strict in their judgments on the matter and have not demanded repeat offenses to punish judges accused of harassment, for example. Furthermore, they have valued the words of the victims, giving weight to the resolution that establishes the protocol for trials with a gender perspective.
The defense of the DF judge asked for the administrative proceedings to be annulled. In the assessment of the rapporteur, Daiane Nogueira de Lira, the convictions in two PADs (disciplinary administrative proceedings) were not based solely on the words of the victims — although that was possible.
One of the victims in the case reported harassment that occurred inside the magistrate’s office, which is also similar to the Buzzi case.
When defending himself, the judge stated that the civil servant was shaken by not being able to combine her commission position with remote work and “perhaps due to pre-existing psychological and psychiatric problems she had an outburst and fantasized about the harassment”. He also refuted the accusations by saying that there was collusion between the victims — one of them had a panic attack after one of the judge’s advances.
Daiane Lira stated, in her vote, that the application of the protocol with a gender perspective has been mandatory since 2023. “Whatever the type of harassment, the common element is the existence of an inequality of power, which can be manifested in hierarchical, economic or gender forms”, she said.
The counselor also highlighted the asymmetrical relationship, since the judge was the unit’s highest authority and the servants were subordinate figures and, therefore, in a vulnerable position. It was followed unanimously and with recommendations from colleagues so that the vote was published and disseminated to the judiciary and society.
“In this context, the gender perspective leads to an adequate valuation of the victim’s word, since, in the absence of eyewitnesses, a cohesive and detailed report made by the person attacked, when ratified by indirect evidence, such as the subsequent emotional state, statements from third parties or medical records, has unique probative value”, stated the rapporteur.
For the ministers of the STJ, the statement from the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) to the STF for the opening of an investigation to investigate Buzzi’s conduct is also important. The assessment is that it would not make sense for the STJ to close the case shortly after that, based on the same evidence and considering that the suspicion of crime itself is being processed by the Supreme Court.
Under reservation, three ministers also commented that an act can be an administrative infraction, but not a crime. Otherwise, however, it would be impossible. A filing would also cause new embarrassment to judges in the future, if the Supreme Court condemns him for the conduct.
In addition to the complete investigation report, the ministers received memorials from the lawyers of the three parties: those of the minister and those of the two complainants.
Buzzi maintains that he did not commit any improper act and that “all accusations are based solely on reports without evidence.” The minister criticized what he called “selective leakage of information” to promote an “early conviction”.
“We further understand that conviction, based on mere reports unaccompanied by evidence, sets a dangerous precedent, which weakens the judiciary”, states the magistrate in a note signed by lawyers Paulo Emilio Catta Preta and Maria Fernanda Ávila.
There are two allegations of a sexual nature against Buzzi. The first accusation against the magistrate was made in January by the daughter of a couple of his friends, who said she had been grabbed while swimming in the sea on the coast of Santa Catarina.
The second came from an outsourced employee who worked for the minister. According to her, the harassment would have occurred in various areas of the office, including the minister’s own office, as well as storage space, corridor and library, over the course of three years. She reports having had mental and physical health problems developed as a result of the episodes.
Ministers assessed, through the first reading of the documents received, that the case of the former employee of Buzzi’s office has more evidence, but the first report is also impactful due to the proximity between those involved. The young woman reported, for example, that she considered the minister like a grandfather.
Given the sentiment shared in the court, some ministers even suggested that Buzzi take early retirement. The possibility, however, was denied by his defense, who stated that it would prove his innocence.
Furthermore, the option could have no practical effects, as it would not impact the process in the Supreme Court or at the administrative level, in this case, depending on when the request was presented.
At the beginning of March, the STJ rescheduled the session that will define the opening of a case against for April 14th. Initially, the stage was scheduled for the 10th of last month, but was postponed to complete the organization of the case material.
At that time, court ministers will assess whether the accusations against Buzzi are solid enough to be transformed into a PAD or whether they should be archived. If the first option prevails, the minister will answer for the accusations, will have the right to defense and, afterwards, the CNJ must review the process.
The tendency is for the investigation to result in the magistrate’s compulsory retirement. For this to happen, at least 22 votes are needed — the court is made up of 33 ministers. Voting is secret.
