Jurists discuss decision and evaluate next steps of Bolsonaro’s trial

The judgment of Jair Bolsonaro in 1st class of the STFcompleted on Wednesday (26) and which ended with the decision of the ministers of making the former president defendant in the alleged process scammer During the transition from government, it has generated an intense debate between jurists, with agreement or disagreeing with various aspects or even the process as a whole.

USP’s lawyer and criminal lawyer, Pierpaolo Bottini, said the trial has passed out without startles, respecting due process. Regarding the vote of Minister Luiz Fux, who opened the possibility of divergence when the trial was made, he assessed that “he is consistent with the position of the minister in other cases, however, the minister did not advance the merit.”

Also read: Innocent or guilty? Politicians comment trial that made Bolsonaro defendant

According to the professor of constitutional law of FGV, Oscar Vilhena, Minister Fux’s considerations may be resumed throughout the trial. “I disagree with the question of bringing the trial to the plenary. In addition, I think it is positive that the allegations are rigorously analyzed, as well as the penalties should be individualized. That is, the conduct of each one, as well as their position, has to be verified.

Vilhena said she believed that there will still be, in the trial of the action, some discussion about the allegation of the former mauro cid order.

Regarding the cumulation of crimes, Vilhena argues to look at each other’s conduct. “I believe that the president committed different crimes at different times. During his mandate he conspired against the rule of law and incited the military. After the election his conduct is coup. So, in his case, it seems to me to be cumulated,” he says.

For USP law professor Mauricio Stegemann Dieter, the former orders of orders should also have been denounced. “I don’t like it very much, I admit, the fact that Mauro Cid was not denounced, considering that he lied in his denunciation,” he said.

From the point of view of the political struggle, the teacher assessed that the path of Bolsonaro’s personal defense is wrong. “To the extent that he wants to pose as someone he did not know, who has no involvement in the facts, this can cost him the support of his main allies,” he said. He added: “In a criminal case, when the defendants accuse themselves among them, usually everyone is convicted.”

Receipt of the complaint

Former STF minister Marco Aurélio Mello questioned the receipt of the complaint by peers, even before the trial end. “In the face of the constitutional principle of non-culpability, what usually happens in life in society. To him, MP, it is necessary to prove the guilt, not the accused of innocence. Without these elements, exception, the complaint was not received,” he said.

Mello is known for having divergent positions compared to most of the court. And even questioned the competence for the trial. “Where was the current president, then former President Lula was tried? Curitiba’s thirteenth Criminal Court. How is the constitutional principle of the natural judge?” Asked the former STF minister.

Recently, the Supreme has changed the understanding of privileged forum, keeping crimes committed during the mandate of the President of the Republic, even after leaving office.

Professor Oscar Vilhena, on the other hand, stated that the complaint seemed very consistent and with good probative basis. “The Supreme Court has done what should be done. The new Democratic Rule Defense Law made clear the conduct of attempted coup, the abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, as well as incitement to the military against civilian powers,” said the jurist.