In the UN Human Rights Committee’s decision, which concluded that former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) had undergone partial due process by the Brazilian Justice, experts said conversations between him and former President Dilma Rousseff (PT) were “” illegally caught”. The finding forms part of a 35-page resolution published today in Geneva.
The committee decided that the Brazilian government should announce the decision in its communications channels and have 180 days to report how it plans to repair the damage done to the former president.
according to this UOL The UN Human Rights Committee, announced privately yesterday, concluded that former judge Sergio Moro (União Brasil) and federal prosecutors were biased in the processes and decisions of the cases against former President Lula in the context of Operation Car Wash. The decision, which was made public this Thursday (28), is the first international crackdown on the former Justice Minister of the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government.
In March 2016, a conversation between Lula and Dilma was cut off and released to the press at the behest of then-judge Sergio Moro. At that time, Lula was going to take over the Civil Assembly of the PT government, but was blocked by Justice after the audio was released, indicating an attempt to give him a privileged forum.
According to the decision published by the international body, “the talks with former President Rousseff were illegally intercepted,” as has been repeatedly accepted by the Federal Supreme Court.
In Lula’s defense, it was stated that Moro justified that the transmission of voices to the press took place because the speeches would be in the “public interest”. But according to the former president’s lawyers, the purpose of his statement was “to create political turmoil and create strong pressure to turn down Lula’s candidacy. [ao cargo que ele estava sendo designado por Dilma]gives the impression that he is worried about escaping arrest because he is guilty”.
The committee also condemned the interception of speeches involving Lula’s lawyers. “The Board considers that the timing and manner of the seizure of the lawyer’s and law firm’s phones, and all disclosures, reveal ulterior motives that are ‘not permitted by law’ and therefore arbitrary, pursuant to section 10 of Law No. 9.296.” said.
Therefore, the committee considers the above-mentioned interventions and statements as illegal and arbitrary and declares that they violate Article 17 (UN Civil and Political Rights) of the Convention.
UN Human Rights Committee
The Brazilian state argued that all wiretapping orders requested by the Federal Public Ministry were “broad-based and in accordance with national legislation”.
The state also claimed that “the decision explains the indispensability of the measure to shed light on serious crimes arising from substantial evidence”. The state further stated that “declassification is also motivated and carried out in the public interest to prevent obstruction of justice and for a “healthy public scrutiny of the performance of government and of criminal justice itself”.
Lava Jato Powerpoint
Another controversy between the parties and the committee’s 18 members was the behavior of the Lava Jato task force prosecutors. Lula used the fact that a Powerpoint was presented at one of the press conferences to justify the violation of the presumption of innocence.
The UN body concluded that it was in the nature of prosecutors to make complaints. However, he agreed that Lava Jato’s demeanor exceeded certain parameters.
Experts said, “The Board considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not show the restriction required by the principle of presumption of innocence and therefore violated the author’s right under Article 14 (2) of the Convention.”
The Brazilian state once again rejected the assessment, stating that “there is nothing in the statements of the members of the Federal Public Ministry that could affect the independent and impartial performance of the judiciary.”
The state also said that “making a technical statement to the public regarding the charges against the author (Lula) is understood in accordance with the principle of right to information and transparency”.
To justify the Powerpoint and the press conference, the government concludes that Moro himself concludes:
- No political party or political-ideological aims are granted;
- In view of the accused’s bad reputation, it was sought to inform and be held accountable;
- Confirmed the relevance of the author’s claim to command; and
- There was no disrespectful language in the adjectives used in the charges presented.
Brazil defended Moro
Throughout the process, both the Michel Temer government (between 2016 and 2018) and the Jair Bolsonaro government (from 2019) have been broadly defending former judge Sergio Moro.
One of the arguments in Lula’s defense was that Moro accepted the position of Minister of Justice, showing that he had political plans and used his position as a judge to do so. But for the state, “an inference about personal intentions is not just forensic evidence and should not be considered by the Committee.”
Brazil even insisted that Moro had a “passive nature” role in the preliminary investigation.
“The judge never participates in the investigation phase and does not participate in the investigative strategy designed by prosecutors and police,” the country said. For this reason, the judge does not form an opinion on the pre-trial case, but only guarantees the right of the accused to have the actions taken by the police and prosecutors subject to judicial review.”
Moro says STF’s decision affects UN
In a statement released today, Moro did not mention the status of the leaked speech, but said “results.” [do comitê da ONU] Taken from the Federal Supreme Court’s 2nd class ruling last year that overturned the convictions of former President Lula.
“I think the STF’s decision was a gross mistake of justice and unfortunately unduly influenced the UN Committee. In any case, even the Committee does not deny corruption at Petrobras or confirm Lula’s innocence,” Moro said.
“It is worth noting that the previous President Lula’s conviction was upheld by three judicial authorities and passed the filter of nine judges. In the implementation of the law, the fight against corruption was legitimate and it is worth noting that there was no form of punishment for political persecution”, the former judge said.
Lula’s defense speaks of a “pedagogical decision”
Cristiano Zanin, the lawyer who served in Lula’s defense, said at a press conference this morning that the most important thing in the decision was to set a parameter for justice and Brazilian institutions.
“[No documento,] The UN emphasizes that no citizen should be subjected to such treatment. Therefore, I think it is a pedagogical decision.”
With the end of the trial, the decision has passed into the execution phase. “The ball is now in the Brazilian government,” the lawyer said.
The federal government has 180 days to respond to the UN on what potential reparations should be made for the process and what action to take domestically to ensure that an incident like the president’s doesn’t happen again.
The defense did not want to say what measures should be taken in case of non-compliance with the findings, but stated that there are legal remedies.
*Collaboration with Lucas Borges Teixeira from UOL in São Paulo
source: Noticias
