[ad_1]
Appointed to replace Celso de Mello in the STF (Federal Supreme Court), Judge Kassio Nunes Marques today denied having copied excerpts from articles published on the Internet in his master’s thesis. According to Marques, his work and that of the lawyer Saul Torinho Leal, an alleged victim of plagiarism, are “opposing doctrinal productions.”
“Judge Kassio Nunes Marques seeks judicial self-control in his speech. The work is different from the position of Professor Saul Tourinho, defender of judicial activism. (…) The coincidence of the mentioned quotes is probably due to the exchange of information and files related to one of the issues addressed ”, justified the judge’s opinion in a note.
The complaint for the alleged plagiarism was made today by the magazine Crusoé. According to the report, Marques copied excerpts from articles written by Leal, a member of the law firm of former STF minister Carlos Ayres Britto. Even Portuguese errors were repeated, indicating that the judge “copied and pasted” the texts without revision.
With the thesis, presented in 2015 to the Autonomous University of Lisbon, in Portugal, Kassio Marques guaranteed his master’s degree in law. Crusoé analyzed 127 pages of this work and identified at least ten passages that reproduce passages from Leal. The judge does not refer to the lawyer.
Marques staff maintain that, at that time, the university already had the best anti-plagiarism tool in Portugal. The master’s thesis, with all the mentions mentioned, was evaluated by this program and considered “within the standard required by the institution.”
“It is worth mentioning that academic degrees have never brought any economic advantage to the judge, since he did not teach after obtaining the degree and never gave a paid lecture, having only sought to improve the exercise of the judicial power,” concluded the advisor.
Excerpts allegedly plagiarized
On pages 30 and 31 of Marques’s dissertation, it is possible to identify the first excerpts compatible with Leal’s articles. The judge writes:
In the Constitution of India, in its article 37, when speaking of social rights, it is said that the provisions contained in this Part should not be implemented by any Court, but the principles established here are, however, fundamental for the government from the country. and it should be the duty of the State to apply these principles in the drafting of laws. The constituent established a prediction on the merely programmatic content of social rights, not only directing them exclusively to the government of the country, but strictly prohibiting the insertion of the Judiciary, in discussions about the realization of the right to health. This is not what happened in Brazil. “
The article by lawyer Saul Tourinho Leal says:
“The Constitution of India, in its article 37, when it speaks of social rights, says that ‘the provisions contained in this Part should not be implemented by any Court, but the principles established here are, however, fundamental for government of the country and it should be the duty of the State to apply these principles in the drafting of laws. ”In the case of India, the constituent established an express provision on the purely programmatic content of social rights, not only directing them exclusively to the government of the country, but by prohibiting the insertion of the Judiciary in discussions about the realization of the right to health. That is not what happened in Brazil. “
In another excerpt, Kassio Marques reproduces a spelling error. In both works, the African country Namibia appears as “Nanibia”:
“In turn, p. 101 of the Constitution of Nanibia says that the principles of state policy contained in this Chapter should not, by themselves, be legally enforceable by any Court, but should, nevertheless, guide the government in the preparation and application of laws to give effect to the fundamental objectives of the aforementioned principles ”, reads the work signed by the judge.
In Tourinho Leal’s text, the text:
“Article 101 of the Constitution of Nanibia says that” the principles of state policy contained in this chapter must not, by themselves, be legally enforceable by any court, but must, however, guide the government in the drafting and application of laws to implement the fundamental objectives of those principles. “
