Alexandre de Moraes votes to make Eduardo Bolsonaro a defendant for coercion of judicial authorities | Policy

The first class Cases will be decided in virtual plenary session. The analysis begins this Friday at 11am and will run until November 25th. If the complaint is accepted, Eduardo will of course be named as the defendant, and a criminal case will be filed against the congressman, with the STF deciding whether to convict or acquit him at a later date. In addition to Mr. Moraes, the first panel includes: carmen lucia, Cristiano Zanin and Flavio Dino.

According to the Attorney General’s Office (P.G.R.), Mr. Eduardo, the person responsible for complaints, would have clearly stated: 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 Moraes, Eduardo admitted in several publications on social networks that he participated in the implementation of economic sanctions applied against Brazil and its authorities.

He went on to say that while the congressman was active in anti-government lobbying in the US, he also argued that only a “broad, general and unlimited” pardon for coup suspects could overturn the penalties applied by the US government.

“All these factors, as laid out in the indictment, reveal the seriousness of Eduardo Bolsonaro’s threats against the Brazilian authorities, especially the ministers of the Federal Supreme Court. According to the defendants, he is responsible for the imposition of the sanctions (…) (Eduardo). The suspension of the sanctions is coupled with Jair Bolsonaro’s release from final punishment for his criminal acts,” he said. said in a vote.

Moraes said that based on conversations extracted from Bolsonaro’s cell phone, it was possible to conclude that Eduardo’s visit to the United States was “substantially connected to an attempt to intimidate the Brazilian authorities.” For the Minister, the Deputy Minister sought to create an unstable institutional and social environment in which he sought to coerce the authorities.

“In this connection, Mr. Eduardo has publicly assumed the role of coordinating sanctions with senior U.S. government officials. There is evidence of materiality and reasonable and sufficient evidence of authorship,” the minister continued.

Finally, he said that in accordance with Article 71 of the Penal Code, which provides for increased penalties if the crime continues, charges against coercion during the process must be accepted.

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.

Gonetto, Eduardo, for influencers Paulo Figueiredosought to “create a climate of instability and fear, projecting to the Brazilian authorities the possibility of foreign retaliation and to the people the specter of an isolated and derided country.” “All of this is, and always has been, with the intention of moving the Federal Supreme Court not to issue censure judgments in proceedings related to so-called ‘coup cases,'” Gone said.

According to the PGR, “the defendants repeatedly argued that they could obtain sanctions abroad, and they did, as the consequences were extremely important, both for the national economy and for the judges in the Jair Bolsonaro case.”

Eduardo is the Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU). The defense was decided by Alexandre de Moraes, as the lawmaker 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.”