STF begins analysis of coercion complaint against Eduardo Bolsonaro | Policy

The virtual analysis begins this Friday at 11 a.m. and runs until November 21st. If the complaint is accepted, Eduardo will be named as a defendant and a criminal case will be filed against the lawmaker, and the STF will later decide whether he is guilty or not guilty. First class includes Alexandre de Moraes, Flavio Dino, Carmen Lucia and Cristiano Zanin.

According to the Attorney General’s Office (PGR), which is handling the complaint, Eduardo said: US Financial sanctions against Brazil and the judiciary. For example, in July, Mr. Moraes received the following sanctions: Magnitsky methodprovides for financial sanctions. Other ministers also had their US visas revoked.

According to the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonethe aim would be to thwart authorities that benefit Bolsonaro. Despite his actions, the former president was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison in September.

In Gone’s case, Eduardo, along with the influential Paulo Figueiredo, attempted to “create a climate of instability and fear, projecting to the Brazilian authorities the possibility of foreign retaliation and to the population the specter of an isolated and ridiculed country.”

PGR also said: “As you can see, the defendants have repeatedly asserted that they can obtain sanctions abroad, and indeed they have obtained them, and the consequences are extremely serious, both for the national economy and for the judges in the Jair Bolsonaro case.”

Eduardo’s defense statement

Mr. Eduardo will be represented by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (DPU) based on Mr. Moraes’ decision, as Mr. Moraes did not appoint a lawyer during the proceedings and did not provide a preliminary response to the charges.

The defense argued that this procedure was invalid because it ignored the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires notification of accusations to be made by letter if the defendant is not in Brazil. The DPU had requested notification by this method, but the Minister rejected that request and proceeded with notification by notification.

But according to the public defender’s office, summonses by notice should be used in cases where the defendant is difficult to find, but that is not the case. “Not being present on the territory of a state is not the same as creating hardship. Physical absence constitutes a situation requiring another procedural measure, namely the letter of logatory,” he argued.

According to the public defender’s office, the crime of extortion requires “assault” and “serious intimidation.” The agency said the PGR “does not list any acts of violence committed by the defendant against any authorities.”