Ministry of Culture – Opening of the II National Conference of Culture. Some rights reserved.
On April 4, the
Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) denied the habeas corpus petition filed by former
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a constitutional remedy to prevent his
arrest before his conviction becomes definitive.
Lula was sentenced first, and
later on second instance, to 12 years in prison on charges of corruption,
mainly for supposedly accepting an apartment as a bribe in order to facilitate
dubious contracts with Petrobras, Brazil's State oil company.
The problem with Lula's conviction is the use of criminal
proceedings as a political toolset with a long-standing authoritarian agenda.
The official discourse is the redemption and moralization of politics, but its
machinery disregards constitutional fundamental rights inverting the burden of
proof and tainting the very principle of a fair trial.
To justify our thesis,
our argument will be based on the following points: that conclusive evidence
has not been presented in the Sergio Moro's sentence that could indicate Lula's
crime of corruption and money laundering; that Lula's case was sped through the
courts in record time, and the rights provided by the procedural laws were not
respected; and finally, that, as illustrated by the habeas corpus decision made
by the Brazilian Supreme Court, a restrictive interpretation of the law was
used to the detriment of Lula.
The judge Sergio Moro has sentenced former president Lula for the
crime of corruption and money laundering. In his ruling, the judge points out
only a few indications that a property in the interior of the State of São
Paulo (known as the Triplex of Guarujá) belonged to Lula.
Moro's sentence is
based on the following evidence: a rough draft of a proposal to buy the
property signed by Lula's wife; testimonies of people working in the building
claiming to have seen Lula visiting the property, and messages exchanged
between the executives of the building contractor and an acquaintance of Lula,
without clear substantive evidence.
The sentence confirmed by the judges of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) was a strategy for avoiding that Lula's potential crime was prescribed.
Relying on Moro's sentence, we can see that
such indications are not sufficient to prove that the property belonged to
Lula, nor even to find a complete vestige that makes a link between the building
contractor with Petrobras. Although Moro's sentence, in fact, is littered with
partiality and lack of evidence, the second instance, represented by the judges
of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4), confirmed his sentence
and increased Lula's penalty. This was a strategy for avoiding that Lula's
potential crime was prescribed.
The case against Lula also was compromised by an unprecedented fast-tracking
through the courts, by various vices and legal tricks. The indictment process
against Lula took nine months to be completed (usually the speed of a process
with a conviction of the defendant takes on average between 18 and 30 months).
The outcome could not fail to be singular, with Moro's arrest decree coming a record
22 minutes after the Second Instance Court (TRF-4) communicate the rejection of
Lula's appeal, and with the Federal Public Prosecutor's request in a hurry to clamp
down on Lula's growing tide of public support, and to prevent him from carrying
out a "manipulative movement of the masses," according to El País.
Regarding the use of a restrictive interpretation, the judgment in
the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) of the Lula habeas corpus is emblematic, in
this sense.
By denying the Lula's habeas corpus, the Court allowed for the
immediate commencement of his sentence, even before exhausting all the appeal
instances.
From the exercise of a majoritarian role, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) thus slides into an undemocratic force.
It has thus sealed off the presumption of innocence and possibility
for the ample defense, with the alleged justification of purging impunity and
corruption. From the exercise of a majoritarian role, the Brazilian Supreme
Court (STF) thus slides into an undemocratic force.
Finally, it is worth noting that recognizing this abuse is not to
deny that investigations should be carried out where corruption is suspected, or
to postulate that Lula is above the law; but to recognize that the way this
process has been conducted undermines the rule of law and many of the
guarantees and rights of citizens in an open and fair society, and points towards
political persecution.
