AGU Appeals Celso de Mello’s Decision Regarding Bolsonaro’s Face-to-Face Testimony | Politics

Last week, the STF minister denied the president the possibility of being questioned in writing. The decision did not determine the place or date of the deposition, which must be defined by the Federal Police. According to AGU, the PF informed the agency that the testimony will take place on one of the following dates: September 21, 22 or 23At 2 pm.

In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the AGU maintains that the interrogation is a means of defense. It also asks that, given that Minister Celso de Mello is on sick leave, the appeal be analyzed by Marco Aurélio Mello, in accordance with the regulations for this type of substitution. But the dean has already pointed out that, even on sick leave, he can decide on the cases under his report.

“As the interrogation is a means of defense, it is not unreasonable to affirm that the right to silence allows not only the absence of a demonstration, but that, if it is carried out, it authorizes its realization in the way that the investigated person intends, provided that it is lawful If it is possible to be quiet, it is natural to be able to express in a different way than orally ”, argued the AGU.

On Friday (11), lawyer Rodrigo Sánchez Ríos, who represents Sergio Moro, said that Minister Celso de Mello’s decision guaranteed equal treatment, since the former minister was heard in person.

The AGU, however, argues that the Supreme Court should grant an isonomic treatment to Bolsonaro in relation to former President Michel Temer, who, when he occupied the Planalto Palace, gave written testimony.

Therefore, AGU asks Celso to review the decision that denied the clarifications in writing. If the minister maintains the position, the case must be analyzed by the full Court. The agency also requested that the testimony not occur if the Supreme Court does not define the issue.

The Lawyers also reported that they received a communication from the Federal Police, summoning the president to give a statement. Therefore, it requests that the effects of Minister Celso de Mello’s decision be suspended until the appeal is heard.

Celso de Mello’s decision

In the decision on the deposition, Celso de Mello affirmed that the deposition in person is only allowed to the heads of the Three Powers of the Republic to appear as witnesses or victims, not when they are investigated or charged. Bolsonaro is investigated in the investigation.

In a recent order, Celso de Mello had already stated that the right to testify in writing and choose a date does not extend “to the investigated or the accused.”

During the investigations, the PF informed the Supreme Court that it wants to hear from the president about the accusations, and Celso de Mello, rapporteur of the investigation, asked the PGR to comment on the request. The PGR defended Bolsonaro’s right to choose to respond in writing.

The Dean of the STF recorded in the document that he made the decision during the period of sick leave, and that this is expressly established by the Organic Law of the Judicial Power.

It should be noted, therefore, that the magistrate, even if he has a license for health reasons – and as long as there is no medical contraindication (innocent in the species) -, will have the power, without prejudice to the license that he will continue to enjoy, to judge all processes . that have been held, for this purpose, before the start and enjoy the medical license that was granted “.

Celso de Mello is on sick leave until the 26th. The minister’s office clarified that the decision on the deposition had been ready since August 18, when he had to leave for surgery.

The Organic Law of the Judiciary establishes that a licensed magistrate “may issue decisions in cases that, prior to the license, were concluded for sentencing.”

Moro’s defense can go on

Celso de Mello also allowed the defense of former Minister of Justice Sérgio Moro to accompany the face-to-face interrogation of President Bolsonaro and ask the president questions, following the STF’s understandings on this type of procedure.

“In this context, I determine that the co-investigated Sérgio Fernando Moro is guaranteed the right, through his lawyers, to be present at the act of interrogation of the President of the Republic to be carried out by the Federal Police, guaranteeing him, in addition , the right to ask questions, if they consider them necessary and pertinent ”.

For Celso de Mello, this represents the broad right of defense.

“Allowing the investigated (or accused) to have formal access to the other co-investigated (or accused), through questions that are addressed to them in the respective interrogations, represents a viable means to exercise the constitutional prerogatives of the full defense and of the adversary “.