Minister suspends benefits for woman sentenced to 16 years for attempted coup and damage to property
The minister of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) Alexandre de Moraes suspended the application of the Dosimetry Law in requests related to the extremist acts of January 8, 2023. The decision is valid until the Court judges the actions that question the constitutionality of the rule. Read the decision [PDF – 124KB]
Alexandre de Moraes denied the application of the recently enacted Law 15,402/2026 in favor of Nara Faustino de Menezes, convicted of participating in the extremist acts of January 8th. The decision was signed this Saturday (May 9, 2026).
Until 1:30 pm this Saturday (May 9, 2026), the minister had already published 10 decisions in this regard.
Menezes is serving a sentence of 16 years and 6 months in prison for crimes such as violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and coup d’état. On Friday (May 8), the condemned woman’s defense had requested the immediate application of the new rules introduced by the legislation.
Moraes, however, suspended the effects of the rule on the defendant’s criminal execution. The judge justified that the STF still needs to judge, in plenary, the actions (ADIs 7,966 and 7,967) that question the constitutionality of the new law. Until then, according to the minister, the execution of the sentence will normally continue under the terms in which it became final.
DECISION HISTORY
On Friday (May 8), the Supreme Court received the first actions against the law, which has the potential to benefit those convicted of the attempted coup d’état. The rule was promulgated by the president of the National Congress, Davi Alcolumbre.
The actions were filed by the ABI (Brazilian Press Association) and the Psol-Rede federation. The entities assess that the standard acts as an instrument to “create more favorable enforcement treatment for crimes aimed at institutional disruption”according to the STF. Moraes was chosen as rapporteur for the case.
One of the central points of the actions questions the way in which the issue was assessed by Congress. According to the authors, there was a fragmented analysis of the presidential veto, with the reestablishment of only parts of the norm, which would be unconstitutional.
