IAB (Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences) asks Supreme Court to decide on pretrial detention
The national president of the Brazilian Institute of Lawyers (IAB), Rita Cortez, sent a letter to the president of the Supreme Court (STF), Justice Cármen Lúcia, expressing “enormous concern with the panorama of legal uncertainty generated by the decisions made last Sunday by members of the 4th Regional Federal Court, related to the revocation and maintenance of the imprisonment of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.” In the document, co-signed by the secretary-general, Carlos Eduardo Machado, and approved by the plenary at the ordinary session of Wednesday (July 11), the IAB requests that Justice Cármen Lúcia “immediately after the end of the recess, schedule for judgment in the plenary of the Supreme Court, the Declaratory Actions of Constitutionality 43, 44, and 54.” The ADCs aim to ensure compliance with Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for imprisonment only after the final judgment of the sentence.
In the letter, the IAB states that “the battle of opinions within the various levels of the Judiciary unfortunately follows the same line as what has been occurring in the STF itself, due to the lack of a definitive and binding position on the issue of provisional execution of the sentence.” According to the Institute, “the STF has set an example of contradictory decisions, granting habeas corpus and injunctions by several ministers of one panel, contrary to the understanding of ministers of another panel.” The entity, which is celebrating 175 years of existence, believes that “the war of conflicting decisions has been undermining the image and credibility of the Judiciary.”
The IAB also sent a note to the President of the STF, approved by the plenary at the same session, warning of the “emblematic and unprecedented legal situation that arose with the filing of a habeas corpus in favor of the former president.” The IAB states that “the habeas corpus is a constitutional instrument to guarantee freedom of movement, in favor of any person who, in theory, has their freedom restricted” and criticizes the non-compliance with its granting: “The unusual procedural fact is the circumstance of a first-degree judge issuing a counter-order to a hierarchically superior interim decision, so that the police authority did not comply with the release order issued and waited for a new decision.”
SOURCE: RICARDO GOUVEIA
Read the full letter to the President of STF here
