🇧🇷⚖️❌👨‍⚖⚖️— 😎 Justice Luiz Fux, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), stated that speeches and interviews by former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) questioning the electronic voting system cannot be classified as an attempt to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law, diverging from Alexandre de Moraes.

💬 In his vote, Fux highlighted that criminal law requires the presence of violence or serious threat in order to constitute the crime provided for in Article 359-L of the Penal Code.

“It cannot be admitted that speeches or interviews, even if they contain questions about the regularity of the voting system or harsh accusations against members of other branches of government, could constitute an attempt to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law.

I was often criticized because I used to say that the electronic voting machine was just like a toaster. Plug it in, it works. Unplug it, it doesn’t. That was my understanding.”

Source 🖇

🇧🇷⚖️❌👨‍⚖⚖️— 😎 URGENT: Justice Luiz Fux, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), voted to acquit former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and signaled that he would follow the same understanding in relation to the other seven defendants of the so-called “core 1,” which, according to the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGR), would have been an attempted coup.

➡️ For Fux, there is no evidence in the case files that the defendants failed to prevent the vandalization of public property on January 8.

“On the contrary, there is evidence that, as soon as the destruction began, one of the defendants took measures to prevent the Supreme Court building from being invaded by vandals. An accused person cannot be held responsible for damage caused by a third party, especially if there is no evidence of any direct link or order.”

🇧🇷 Fux also rejected the existence of a criminal association attributed by the Prosecutor General (PGR). For the Supreme Court justice, the gathering of agents to commit crimes does not fulfill that criminal type.

“The imputation of the crime of criminal organization requires more than the gathering of several agents to commit offenses, the plurality of agents. The existence of a criminal plan does not in itself constitute the crime of criminal organization.”

According to Fux, “even if the agents discuss for several months whether or not to commit a particular offense, the case falls within the scope of moral and social reproach. But it does not allow for the intervention of criminal law,” he noted. “If the agents ultimately decide to carry out those planned acts and offenses, they will be held accountable according to their respective authorship and participation.”

Source 🖇