[ad_1]
Attorney Sofia Ribeiro Branco, who represents Doyen in the Rui Pinto trial, interrupted the start of Tuesday’s session to formally protest the questions posed by Rui Pinto’s defense to Doyen’s former president and minority partner Nélio Lucas. .
The lawyer asked the panel of judges not to admit scrutiny questions from Doyen and the witness Nélio Lucas, arguing that this constitutes an irregularity in the context of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Sofia Ribeiro Branco’s intervention came shortly after Francisco Teixeira da Mota, Rui Pinto’s lawyer, questioned Nélio Lucas about the Maltese company Vela Management and who was Nélio’s partner in that company.
Doyen’s lawyer argued that “allowing the offended person to scrutinize with successive questions about the professional, business and personal life of one of the offended is aggravating the consequences of the crime that is being tried.”
Francisco Teixeira da Mota pointed out that this “is a complex process and cannot be reduced to a mere process of attempted extortion and illegitimate access.” “What is at stake here is the defense of the accused, which can be as broad as possible. Bear in mind that this started with an innocent question about Vela,” said Teixeira da Mota.
“Vela is a company that is important to understand because it enters into businesses that were denounced by Football Leaks,” said Rui Pinto’s lawyer.
“The non-acceptance of the questions aims to totally restrict the defense rights of the accused,” stressed Teixeira da Mota, even recalling the article published this Monday by Expresso about the doubts about the fact that Doyen is presented as a fund and is not. .
The judge interrupted the trial session for at least half an hour to deliberate on Doyen’s request. The panel of judges, after conferring more than half an hour, concluded that the defendant, Rui Pinto, has the right to know the questions raised by him in response to the dispute. “The court understands that the questions that seek to clarify the way in which the group was organized seem relevant to discovering the material truth. Allowing that in the present case the documents were only used by the prosecution or assistants would violently violate the right of the accused to a fair trial. We understand that there is no nullity or irregularity in matters that seek to clarify the matter to which they refer. “
* News update at 11:30 am with the deliberation of the panel of judges in response to the request of Doyen’s lawyer
