The General Inspectorate of the MP-SP (in São Paulo) initiated a procedure with the aim of investigating whether he committed any disciplinary infraction.
When speaking out in a public civil action that had been filed by the MP-SP Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office in March of this year, prosecutor Marcelo Otavio Camargo Ramos, who had started to work on the case later, maintained that they were framed as an “abstract defense (albeit mistaken) of freedom of conviction and expression, and not in defense of Nazi ideology itself.”
As a result, the Prosecutor’s Office, which had previously filed a lawsuit and asked that Monark be ordered to pay compensation of R$4 million, began to defend that the action be considered unfounded by the Court.
When responding to the procedure, Ramos’ defense requested that the Internal Affairs investigation be archived, arguing that the prosecutor’s statement in the case against Monark was duly substantiated, and with respect to technique and functional independence.
The defense also stated, also within the scope of the procedure, that there is no legal rule that conditions a prosecutor to only reassess the merits of a case in the event that there is new evidence or formal institutional authorization.
“There is no legal provision that imposes absolute binding on members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the legal thesis deduced in the initial petition of the public civil action, because if that were the case, an automatic condition would be created that, in itself, would violate functional independence”, maintains the defense.
It also adds that this prerogative exists to prevent institutional constraints from occurring against members of the Public Ministry due to the content of their procedural statements”.
In the piece that initiated the investigation against Ramos, on April 9, General Inspector Liliana Mercadante Mortari states that the prosecutor’s actions in requesting the dismissal of a public civil action “solely based on a personal legal conviction differing” from that presented in the initial petition appear to be “institutionally questionable”, without having indicated a new fact or evidence or any formal institutional deliberation.
Also according to the Internal Affairs Department, the conduct could in theory constitute a failure to comply with the duty to “look after the prestige of Justice, its prerogatives and the dignity of its functions”. Furthermore, it states that the potential infraction would not be “due to the legal divergence itself, but to the way in which it is used to deflate claims deduced by the ministerial body itself”.
The Internal Affairs Department pointed out that the case would expire in March 2028. According to the legislation, infractions punishable by the mildest penalties — warning, censure and suspension for up to 90 days — expire in two years.
In a note sent to Sheetthe General Inspectorate of the MP-SP stated that this is a procedure of a preliminary nature “with the aim of verifying, in a technical and impartial manner, the possible occurrence of a functional lack”. He also stated that, if it is understood that there is sufficient evidence that there was an infraction on the part of the prosecutor, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. And, in the opposite case, the investigation would be archived.
In 2024, the MP-SP filed a public civil action asking for Monark’s conviction for supporting Nazism. In 2022, in an episode of great repercussion, Monark criticized the , but in Brazil during the broadcast of the .
In March, Ramos declared the action unfounded. Subsequently, in April, asking the judge to disregard the Prosecutor’s previous request and sentence Monark to pay R$4 million.
