Does the UN decision expose condemnation without evidence to the world?

The 2018 presidential elections have already gone down in history. I believe that for many decades to come, the event will be the subject of study and debate. 

Firstly, because Lula, the leader in the polls, was convicted and is imprisoned, which would make him ineligible according to the interpretation of the so-called "Clean Record Law"But even so, he submitted his candidacy registration request to the TSE."

His candidacy has already been challenged, and even before the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) accepts or rejects the various challenges presented to Lula's candidacy registration, a new fact emerges: the United Nations Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Human Rights Committee concluded that facts concerning the process that convicted Lula indicate the existence of possible irreparable harm to Lula's rights, rights foreseen in article 25 of an international treaty signed by Brazil.

Therefore, the Human Rights Committee requested that Brazil adopt all necessary measures to ensure that Lula enjoys and exercises all his political rights while in prison, as a candidate in the 2018 presidential elections, which includes adequate access to the press and members of his political party; it also requested that Brazil not prevent Lula from running in the 2018 presidential elections until all appeals against the conviction have been judged in fair judicial processes and the sentence has become final.

I am not an expert in International Law, so I sought information about the nature of the law. cogent (binding) or merely slide (recommendation) from the UN opinion.

Well, it wasn't difficult to find the following statement in a text signed by Minister Barroso of the Supreme Federal Court: "...There is a wealth of international documents that can serve as a basis, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). (...). This document was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, by 48 votes to zero, with eight abstentions. It encapsulates what has come to be considered the ethical minimum to be ensured for the preservation of human dignity.91 Its content was further developed in other international acts, indisputably binding from a legal standpoint – unlike the UDHR, traditionally seen as a merely programmatic document, soft law –, (...). ".

In other words, the UN opinion, according to Professor Barroso, has a character binding (cogent or mandatory), especially because through Legislative Decree 311, Brazil incorporated into its national legal system the Optional Protocol that recognizes the jurisdiction of the UN Human Rights Committee and the binding nature of its decisions.

The fact is that the national press has given little importance to the event, unlike the international press.

O New York Times The article highlighted the UN statement defending the right of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to run in the presidential elections. The report states that the Brazilian government must guarantee...that Lula may enjoy and exercise his political rights while in prison, as a candidate in the 2018 presidential elections....and that includes having appropriate access to the media and to members of their political party.

In the United Kingdom, the BBC News He highlighted the fact, stating in an article whose content indicates that Lula's rights must be preserved, with "appropriate access to the press and to members of their political partyThe British news outlet also highlighted the UN's request that the former president not be prevented from "to run in the 2018 presidential elections until all pending appeals against his conviction are completed in a fair procedure and the conviction is final.The British The Guardian published that the UN decision "It says that the leftist leader cannot be barred from running until his legal appeals are exhausted."According to the British newspaper,Since Brazil ratified both texts, it is technically obligated to abide by the committee's conclusions.

The French daily newspaper, the Le Figaro published that "The UN Human Rights Commission today demanded that the Brazilian government allow former President Lula to exercise his political rights."Another French newspaper, the Le Monde, highlighted that "The former president's candidacy can only be cancelled once all of his appeals have been examined, which, technically, should prevail in Brazil.".

A Spanish news agency EFE and highlighted that the UN determined that “Brazil should take all appropriate measures to ensure that the former president can exercise his political rights, even while imprisoned, as a candidate for president in the October elections.".

I am not familiar with the process that led to Lula's conviction, but I read the indictment and the sentence, and I confess that convictions based on circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence bother me, as this places Criminal Law in a field of undesirable discretion and subjectivism. I am not unaware of the respectable opinions of those jurists who argue that cases of suspected corruption at the highest levels will always be complex and there will probably be no direct evidence, but conviction based on circumstantial evidence does not serve me. Moreover, in the January 23, 2018 edition, The New York Times published an article by Mark Weisbrojan, in which he states that in the US, the circumstantial evidence used against Lula would not be accepted and that Sérgio Moro demonstrated his own partisanship on numerous occasions, so much so that he had to apologize to the Supreme Court in 2016.