That of the former president is considered unlikely by ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court).
Members of the (Attorney General’s Office) and even political allies share this assessment.
The climate is one of skepticism because criminal review can only be admitted in exceptional cases — for example, when a new fact emerges that proves the defendant’s innocence or when there is evidence that the conviction was based on false testimony or documents.
The assessment of two STF ministers and interlocutors of two others is that, in a preliminary analysis, this would not be the case of Bolsonaro, sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison for leading an attempted coup d’état.
This is because the former president’s lawyers dispute elements that, at the time of the , had already been debated by the court’s First Panel.
These points include criticisms of an alleged identification of who did what, in addition to statements about the restriction of defense, insurgency against the whistleblowing and questions about the competence of the class, and not the STF plenary, to judge the case. In September last year, there was a majority on the board to dismiss these allegations.
of the criminal review, the minister has positions that align with the defense’s theses, as was made clear when voting in cases of . However, he can sublimate his personal understanding if he understands that Bolsonaro’s petition does not comply with the requirements set out in the STF regulations.
The magistrate signaled to assistants that he intends to act without haste and with caution. He also indicated that he will comply with the procedure prescribed for criminal review processes. One of the first steps would be to request a statement from the Attorney General of the Republic, .
In requests for criminal review made by those convicted of the 8th of January, Gonet has spoken out against the reversal of the sentences. He has argued that there are no new facts that justify the reopening of criminal cases that have already become final, that is, closed after all applicable appeals have been judged.
STF ministers such as , and had this same interpretation when reporting criminal reviews of this type. They have stated that, having exhausted resources in the criminal action, the defenses have used criminal review as a way of guaranteeing a new collegial analysis of the evidence, which is technically unacceptable.
“The appellant’s arguments, insufficient to modify the questioned decision, merely demonstrate non-conformity and resistance to putting an end to processes that drag on to the detriment of efficient judicial provision”, wrote Cármen in the case of a businessman sentenced to 14 years in prison for the invasion and depredation of the Senate.
The minister denied the criminal review in a monocratic decision, but the defendant appealed, and the case went to trial in plenary. Of the court’s ten magistrates, only and voted to partially reverse the businessman’s conviction, acquitting him of crimes against democracy and maintaining the sentence on deterioration of assets.
There is an internal reading that this score could be repeated in Bolsonaro’s case, with a large majority against the criminal review, which would include Kassio’s vote.
There is also the expectation that, when the time comes for this analysis, the former president will have already obtained a reduction in his sentence through the Dosimetry Law, which tends to be validated by the STF.
Even among people close to the former president, the feeling is pessimism.
Lawyers Celso Vilardi and Paulo Cunha Bueno, for example, who defended Bolsonaro in the coup plot and are following the process of executing the sentence, did not sign this new request and told interlocutors that there is little chance of it having a concrete effect.
The criminal review is led by Brazil’s lawyer, Marcelo Bessa, and was filed at the request of the former president himself. “The basis of this action is the reparation of the judicial error, so that the criminal jurisdiction can once again act in accordance with the postulates of justice”, says the initial petition, which cites “objective, relevant and autonomous defects” in Bolsonaro’s conviction.
