The defense of Jair Bolsonaro (PL) entered the STF (Supreme Federal Court) on Friday (28) with a violation of the ban claiming the victory of Louise Fuchs’ vote. The Minister declared the criminal case null and void and, on the merits, acquitted the former president.
In the document, the lawyers claim that the STF committed a “judicial error” by submitting the final and non-appealable decision while the deadline to oppose the ban was still running out. Therefore, they are calling for a review of the decision.
The defense also states that what happened is an “unacceptable exception.” The appeal was signed by lawyers Celso Velardi, Paulo da Cunha Bueno, Daniel Tesser, Renata Kalem, Domitila Kohler and Eduardo Ferreira da Silva.
“A decision that provided final and non-appealable determination in the criminal case while the deadline to oppose the violating bans was still pending – even though it had been passed by the First Commission – is characterized as a judicial error and should be reconsidered,” the document says.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes announced the final decision on Tuesday (25). On the same date, the judge formally sentenced the former president to 27 years and 3 months in prison on charges of leading a coup plot.
Violation of the ban is a source of defense exclusively in the case of non-unanimous decisions. In the Supreme Court, the already settled interpretation is that it only applies in class actions when there are two votes for acquittal. In the case of Bolsonaro, there was only one vote in favor of acquittal, and that was Fox.
The Defense states in the appeal that it is aware of this understanding of the Court, but points to “the reasons for the disagreement, in particular the internal regulations of the STF which, in Article 333, first clause, specify that bans in violation of the non-unanimous decision of the group can be submitted, without any conditions, as well as the substantive definition in Article 335 that “a decision that does not recognize the ban will be subject to appeal, within five days, the body competent to rule on the appeal.”
In the appeal, the lawyers highlighted other issues, stating that it was important to draw attention to the fact that when analyzing the former president’s situation only “the Judicial Chamber expected the final and non-appealable decision to be ratified during the appeal period.”
“Especially since the case law of this Supreme Court only allows for a final ruling to be expected in cases where there is a clear violation of the right to appeal, which is characterized by the filing of successive appeals that reveal true bad faith,” the lawyers say.
They continued: “But this is not the case in the case. The defense did not even submit new requests for clarification. On the other hand, the appellant is in prison, and it is not appropriate to consider postponing the appeal.”
The defense also argues that the expectation of a final ruling violates Costa Rica’s São José Treaty, which expressly provides for “the right to appeal before a judge or a higher court,” including, as senior minister Celso de Mello has learned, “in cases of criminal convictions as a result of court privilege, established by the superior courts of justice at their original seat (…).”
Current link: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue letter F below.