Leonardo Boff: Barbosa does not honor the Supreme Court.

247 - The philosopher and theologian Leonardo Boff criticized the stance of Joaquim Barbosa, president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), regarding the handling of the imprisonments of those convicted in AP 470. According to him, the desire to convict and target the Workers' Party (PT) was greater than the principles of law. Read more:

A justice system without blindfolds, without scales, and wielded only by the sword?

Traditionally, Justice is represented by a statue with its eyes blindfolded to symbolize impartiality and objectivity; the scales, balance and fairness; and the sword, strength and coercion to impose the verdict.

When analyzing the lengthy process of Criminal Action 470, which judged those involved in the alleged purchase of votes for the PT government's projects, within a staged media spectacle, notable jurists of various persuasions criticized the lack of impartiality and the political nature of the trial.

We will not delve into the merits of Criminal Action 470, which accused 40 people. Let's acknowledge that crimes were committed, subject to the penalties of the law.

But every legal process must respect the two basic rules of law: the presumption of innocence and, in case of doubt, the presumption must favor the defendant.

In other words, no one can be convicted except through consistent material evidence; it cannot be based on circumstantial evidence or inferences. If doubt persists, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt to avoid unjust convictions. Justice, as an institution, since time immemorial, was established precisely to prevent vigilante justice and the unjust conviction of innocent people, but always respecting these two fundamental principles.

It seems that this basic principle of Universal Law has not prevailed among some Ministers of our Supreme Court. It is not I who says this, but notable jurists from various backgrounds. I will cite two of renowned expertise and the high respect they have earned among their peers. I will refrain from mentioning the criticisms of the notable jurist Tarso Genro because he is a member of the Workers' Party (PT) and Governor of Rio Grande do Sul.

The first is Ives Gandra Martins, 88 years old, a jurist, author of dozens of books, Professor at Mackenzie University, the Army General Staff, and the Superior War College. Politically, he is situated at the opposite pole from the PT (Workers' Party) without sacrificing his spirit of impartiality in any way. In an interview with Mônica Bérgamo on September 22, 2012, in Folha de São Paulo, he clearly stated, with reference to José Dirceu's conviction for conspiracy: "The entire process, as I read it, contains no evidence whatsoever. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and deductions using a questionable legal category, employed during the Nazi era, the 'theory of command responsibility.' José Dirceu, by virtue of his position, 'should have known.' Dispensing with material evidence and denying the principle of presumption of innocence and 'in dubio pro reo,' he was framed within this theory." Claus Roxin, a German jurist who delved into this theory, warned in an interview with Folha de São Paulo on November 11, 2012, about the error of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in applying it without supporting evidence. In a careless manner, Justice Rosa Weber stated in her vote: "I have no conclusive proof against Dirceu – but I will condemn him because legal literature allows me to." Which legal literature? That of the Nazis or of the notable Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt? Can a Supreme Federal Court justice allow herself such ethical and legal recklessness?

Gandra is emphatic: “If I have material proof of the crime, I don’t need the theory of command responsibility to convict.” This proof was disregarded. The judges relied on circumstantial evidence and deductions. He warns of the “monumental legal uncertainty” that may now prevail. If a subordinate of a director commits any crime and accuses the director, the “theory of command responsibility” applies to the director because he “should have known.” This accusation alone is enough to convict him.

Another notable figure is the jurist Antônio Bandeira de Mello, 77, a professor at PUC-SP, who also appeared in the same Folha de São Paulo on November 22, 2013. He asserts: “This trial was flawed from beginning to end. The convictions were political. They were made because the media dictated it. In truth, the Supreme Court functioned as the long arm of the media. It was an outlier.”

Scandalous and autocratic, without consulting his peers, was the decision of Minister Joaquim Barbosa. In principle, those convicted should serve their sentences as close as possible to their residences. “If I were from the PT,” says Bandeira de Mello, “or from the family, I would ask that the president of the Supreme Court be prosecuted. He seems more partisan than impartial.”

He chose November 15th, a national holiday, to transport the prisoners, chained and forbidden to communicate, to Brasília in a spectacular military plane. José Genuino, ill and advised against flying, could have been in danger of losing his life.

He placed them all in maximum-security prisons, even those who should have been in semi-open custody. He illegally detained them before concluding the process with the analysis of the "infringement appeals."

The animus condemnandi (the will to condemn) and to lethally attack the PT (Workers' Party) is undeniable in the hasty and irritable actions of Minister Barbosa. And we even had to defend him against so many prejudices that we heard from many quarters due to his Afro-Brazilian ancestry. Against this I always affirm: "we are all Africans" because it was there that we emerged as a human species. But we do not endorse the arbitrary actions of this cultured but angry Minister. With Minister Barbosa, Justice was left without blinders because it was not impartial, it abolished the scales because he was not balanced. He only used the sword to punish, even against the principles of law. He does not honor his office and diminishes the highest legal instance of the Nation.

He, as Saint Paul says to the Romans, "has imprisoned the truth in unrighteousness" (1:18). I consider the Apostle's full statement too harsh to apply to the Minister.