FOTO: Marcos Correa/ Brazils Presidential Press Office/ AP

Neun Stunden lang befragten Senatoren am Mittwoch Moro zu dem Justizskandal um die Verurteilung von Ex-Präsident Lula. Der Politiker war im vergangenen Jahr wegen Korruption und Geldwäsche zu einer langen Haftstrafe verurteilt worden. Er sitzt seit über einem Jahr in einer Zelle im Hauptquartier der Bundespolizei im südbrasilianischen Curitiba ein.

Der brasilianische Ableger der Investigativplattform “The Intercept” hatte jüngst enthüllt, dass Moro und die ermittelnden Staatsanwälte während des Prozesses gegen Lula miteinander gekungelt hatten, um den Ex-Präsidenten so schnell wie möglich ins Gefängnis zu bringen. Sie schufen damit die Grundlage, um den beliebten Lula von der Kandidatur bei der Präsidentschaftswahl im vergangenen Jahr auszuschließen.

Fröhliche Kumpanei zwischen Staatsanwälten und Richter

Moro war als Richter eigentlich zu Neutralität und Distanz verpflichtet. Die Chat-Aufnahmen, die “The Intercept” zugespielt wurden, zeigen jedoch, dass zwischen Richter Moro und den Staatsanwälten fröhliche Kumpanei herrschte. Moro gab Tipps zu den Ermittlungen und besprach mit den Anklägern, wie sich die Presse dafür einspannen ließe, Lula zu verurteilen. Selbst in die personelle Besetzung des Ermittlerteams mischte Moro sich ein: Er kritisierte eine Staatsanwältin, die ihm nicht kompetent erschien. Prompt wurde sie bei den Verhören abgezogen.

Continue lendo AQUI

„Resultado de julgamento reforça necessidade de STF analisar caso de Lula”

“O julgamento realizado hoje (06/03) pelo Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) mostrou a importância de o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) julgar o Habeas Corpus que impetramos em 02/02 e que aguarda ser pautado desde 09/02. Os Ministros do Superior Tribunal de Justiça reconheceram que atualmente Ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal têm proferido decisões na linha sustentada pela defesa do ex-Presidente Lula, ou seja, proibindo a execução antecipada de pena especialmente nos casos em que os recursos a serem analisados pelos Tribunais Superiores têm real perspectiva de acolhimento para absolver o réu ou para decretar a nulidade do processo. No entanto, os julgadores do STJ entenderam que ainda estão obrigados a seguir o procedente de 2016 do STF, que permitia a execução antecipada da pena, mesmo com a real possibilidade desse entendimento estar superado pelas recentes decisões de ministros da Suprema Corte. A condenação imposta a Lula pelo Tribunal Regional Federal da 4a. Região é ilegal e emitida em processo marcado por claras nulidades, como demonstrado pela defesa do ex-Presidente durante todo o processo. Esperamos, portanto, que a presidência do STF coloque em pauta o Habeas Corpus já impetrado, a fim de assegurar a aplicação da Constituição Federal que somente permite o afastamento da presunção de inocência – e a consequente impossibilidade de antecipação do cumprimento de pena – na hipótese de decisão condenatória contra a qual não caiba qualquer recurso (transitada em julgado.“
Cristiano Zanin Martins

Lula será indicado ao Prêmio Nobel da Paz

Au Brésil, une démocratie en déliquescence (Le Monde)

 Editorial. Les scandales, mêlant mallettes d’argent sale et tractations en sous-sol, se sont succédé à la tête du pouvoir au point d’étourdir les Brésiliens.

LE MONDE | • Mis à jour le

Abonnez vous à partir de 1 € Réagir Ajouter

« Editorial du Monde. » Après les bravades, les larmes et les outrances, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, dit « Lula », président du Brésil de 2003 à 2011, a obtempéré. Vendredi 26 janvier, ses avocats sont venus remettre le passeport de l’ancien chef d’Etat aux autorités policières de Sao Paulo. Cette mesure était réclamée par un juge de Brasilia, au lendemain de sa condamnation à douze ans et un mois de prison pour corruption passive et blanchiment d’argent.

Lire aussi :   L’ex-président Lula empêché de quitter le territoire brésilien

Une humiliation de plus pour l’ex-syndicaliste, figure de la lutte ouvrière sous la dictature militaire (1964-1985), qui fut l’un des plus grands dirigeants politiques du pays et la star des sommets internationaux au temps de sa splendeur. Le sort de Lula, « père des pauvres » dont la politique sociale a sorti des millions de Brésiliens de l’indigence, déchaîne les passions.

Ses alliés protestent de son innocence et le défendent tel un dieu tandis que ses ennemis le considèrent comme un bandit. En dépit des étrangetés avérées de la procédure judiciaire, il n’est pas absurde d’imaginer que l’ancien métallo et son Parti des travailleurs aient, à l’instar de leurs prédécesseurs, succombé à la tradition clientéliste du système politique brésilien. Déjà, en 2005, le scandale du « mensalao » (l’achat de voix de parlementaires) avait failli lui coûter sa réélection. Et, au-delà de cette première condamnation, Lula fait également l’objet de huit autres procédures judiciaires.

Immunité dévoyée

Mais le malaise grandit depuis l’« impeachement » controversé, en 2016, de la présidente Dilma Rousseff, héritière et successeure de Lula. Loin de servir la cause de l’éthique promise depuis le déclenchement de l’opération anti-corruption « Lava Jato » (« lavage express »), la disgrâce de Lula offre le spectacle affligeant d’un vieux monde politique en déliquescence.

Au moment où les juges prononçaient la sentence contre l’ex-métallo, l’actuel président, Michel Temer, participait au sommet de Davos, tentant de faire oublier les lourdes accusations qui pèsent contre lui : corruption passive, participation à une organisation criminelle et obstruction à la justice.

Jusqu’à présent, le chef de l’Etat est parvenu à suspendre les procédures qui le visent au prix d’un marchandage éhonté avec des parlementaires, eux-mêmes en délicatesse avec la justice. Au Congrès brésilien, pas moins de 45 sénateurs sur 81 doivent répondre d’accusations criminelles, pointe le site Congresso em Foco, qui scrute l’activité parlementaire. Rien de neuf. « Lava Jato » n’a fait que mettre en lumière des pratiques bien antérieures à l’arrivée au pouvoir de Lula.

Après les manifestations monstres de 2015 et 2016 réclamant au nom de la « morale » le départ de Dilma Rousseff, les scandales, dignes d’un film de série B, mêlant mallettes d’argent sale et tractations en sous-sol, se sont succédé au point d’étourdir les Brésiliens. Mais le statut de foro privilegidao (« citoyen privilégié ») protège les politiciens en fonctions ; l’immunité dont ils bénéficient, légitime dans son principe, est dévoyée et instrumentalisée avec le plus grand cynisme.

L’élite de Brasilia baigne dans un climat d’impunité de nature à écœurer le peuple. A quelques mois de l’élection présidentielle, le Brésil, pays parmi les plus inégalitaires au monde, renvoie l’image d’une société de castes où les dirigeants n’obéissent pas aux mêmes lois que les miséreux. C’est indigne et dangereux pour la plus grande démocratie d’Amérique latine.

En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/01/27/deliquescence-de-la-democratie-bresilienne_5248067_3232.html#Fb64mHAam5Dgfi64.99

Brazil’s Democracy Pushed Into the Abyss

Former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil at an event this month in Rio de Janeiro. Credit Mauro Pimentel/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are fragile achievements in many countries — and susceptible to sharp reversals.

Brazil, the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery, is a fairly young democracy, having emerged from dictatorship just three decades ago. In the past two years, what could have been a historic advancement — the Workers’ Party government granted autonomy to the judiciary to investigate and prosecute official corruption — has turned into its opposite. As a result, Brazil’s democracy is now weaker than it has been since military rule ended.

This week, that democracy may be further eroded as a three-judge appellate court decides whether the most popular political figure in the country, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party, will be barred from competing in the 2018 presidential election, or even jailed.

There is not much pretense that the court will be impartial. The presiding judge of the appellate panel has already praised the trial judge’s decision to convict Mr. da Silva for corruption as “technically irreproachable,” and the judge’s chief of staff posted on her Facebook page a petition calling for Mr. da Silva’s imprisonment.

The trial judge, Sérgio Moro, has demonstrated his own partisanship on numerous occasions. He had to apologize to the Supreme Court in 2016 for releasing wiretapped conversations between Mr. da Silva and President Dilma Rousseff, his lawyer, and his wife and children. Judge Moro arranged a spectacle for the press in which the police showed up at Mr. da Silva’s home and took him away for questioning — even though Mr. da Silva had said he would report voluntarily for questioning.

Continue reading the main story

The evidence against Mr. da Silva is far below the standards that would be taken seriously in, for example, the United States’ judicial system.

He is accused of having accepted a bribe from a big construction company, called OAS, which was prosecuted in Brazil’s “Carwash” corruption scheme. That multibillion-dollar scandal involved companies paying large bribes to officials of the state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to obtain contracts at grossly inflated prices.

The bribe alleged to have been received by Mr. da Silva is an apartment owned by OAS. But there is no documentary evidence that either Mr. da Silva or his wife ever received title to, rented or even stayed in the apartment, nor that they tried to accept this gift.

The evidence against Mr. da Silva is based on the testimony of one convicted OAS executive, José Aldemário Pinheiro Filho, who had his prison sentence reduced in exchange for turning state’s evidence. According to reporting by the prominent Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, Mr. Pinheiro was blocked from plea bargaining when he originally told the same story as Mr. da Silva about the apartment. He also spent about six months in pretrial detention. (This evidence is discussed in the 238-page sentencing document.)

But this scanty evidence was enough for Judge Moro. In something that Americans might consider to be a kangaroo court proceeding, he sentenced Mr. da Silva to nine and a half years in prison.

The rule of law in Brazil had already been dealt a devastating blow in 2016 when Mr. da Silva’s successor, Ms. Rousseff, who was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2014, was impeached and removed from office. Most of the world (and possibly most of Brazil) may believe that she was impeached for corruption. In fact, she was accused of an accounting maneuver that temporarily made the federal budget deficit look smaller than it otherwise would appear. It was something that other presidents and governors had done without consequences. And the government’s own federal prosecutor concluded that it was not a crime.

While there were officials involved in corruption from parties across the political spectrum, including the Workers’ Party, there were no charges of corruption against Ms. Rousseff in the impeachment proceedings.

Mr. da Silva remains the front-runner in the October election because of his and the party’s success in reversing a long economic decline. From 1980 to 2003, the Brazilian economy barely grew at all, about 0.2 percent annually per capita. Mr. da Silva took office in 2003, and Ms. Rousseff in 2011. By 2014, poverty had been reduced by 55 percent and extreme poverty by 65 percent. The real minimum wage increased by 76 percent, real wages overall had risen 35 percent, unemployment hit record lows, and Brazil’s infamous inequality had finally fallen.

But in 2014, a deep recession began, and the Brazilian right was able to take advantage of the downturn to stage what many Brazilians consider a parliamentary coup.

If Mr. da Silva is barred from the presidential election, the result could have very little legitimacy, as in the Honduran election in November that was widely seen as stolen. A poll last year found that 42.7 percent of Brazilians believed that Mr. da Silva was being persecuted by the news media and the judiciary. A noncredible election could be politically destabilizing.

Perhaps most important, Brazil will have reconstituted itself as a much more limited form of electoral democracy, in which a politicized judiciary can exclude a popular political leader from running for office. That would be a calamity for Brazilians, the region and the world.

big demonstration in support of former Brazilian president Lula.

Berlin Contra o Golpe group and the SOS Lula collective invite everyone to participate in a big demonstration in support of former Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, against his unfair sentence and Lawfare persecution.
The demonstration will take place on 21.02.2018 from 16:30 to 18:00, beside the historical clock in Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, during the Berlinale, Berlin Film Festival.
We want to show our indignation and solidarity with the Brazilian people in defense of democracy, which is threatened by political fraud aiming to subvert elections due this year by preventing Lula from standing.

We will also pay a tribute to Dilma Roussef inside the cinema after the showing of the film The Trial (O Processo) a documentary on her impeachment made by Maria Augusta Ramos.

Please bring any banners in support of Lula and in defence of democracy in Brazil.