Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participatory Rights in Brazilian Law and the Requirements of contradictoire and Full Defence in Criminal Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings

  • 239 Accesses

Abstract

In his book ‘O devido processo penal’, Giacomolli pointed out that Brazilian courts, with rare exceptions, still largely follow practices reflecting an authoritarian understanding of criminal justice. It would be misleading to say, however, that this result is still due to the original authoritarian approach of the 1941 code of criminal procedure. Although clearly inspired by the 1930 Italian code, Brazilian criminal justice has undergone several developments over last decades, which have steered it away from the initial state-centred approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 12 ff.

  2. 2.

    Casara and Melchior (2013), p. 19.

  3. 3.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 12 ff.

  4. 4.

    Art. 122(11) of the 1937 Constitution.

  5. 5.

    Art. 141(25) of the 1946 Constitution.

  6. 6.

    Art. 140(16) of the 1967 Constitution.

  7. 7.

    Scarance Fernandes (2010), p. 60.

  8. 8.

    Art. 5(LV).

  9. 9.

    Pellegrini Grinover (1990), p. 11. The two guarantees should instead remain separate according to Scarance Fernandes (2010), p. 61.

  10. 10.

    Scarance Fernandes (2010), p. 61.

  11. 11.

    Art. 153(16), following the new enumeration laid down by the 1969 constitutional amendment.

  12. 12.

    On the strict link between contradictoire and full defence see Pellegrini Grinover et al. (2001), p. 77.

  13. 13.

    Pellegrini Grinover (1990), p. 12.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., 6 fn. 25; Lopes Jr (2017), p. 97 f.

  15. 15.

    Pellegrini Grinover (1990), p. 12 f.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., 10.

  17. 17.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 97.

  18. 18.

    Lauria Tucci (2004), p. 211. Of a different opinion Scarance Fernandes (2010), p. 62, who moreover admits the need to grant suspects the protection of their most relevant interests in the pre-trial inquiry.

  19. 19.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 171 f., 538.

  20. 20.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 362.

  21. 21.

    Gomes and Mazzuoli (2010), p. 113.

  22. 22.

    Pimenta Lopes (2013), p. 6 f.

  23. 23.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 121.

  24. 24.

    Moraes Pitombo (1983), p. 313 ff.

  25. 25.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 236.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Art. 14 CCP.

  28. 28.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 124.

  29. 29.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 286.

  30. 30.

    Art. 394 CCP (before 2008).

  31. 31.

    Art. 396 CCP.

  32. 32.

    Moreover, the code entitles the victim to lodge a complaint before the Chief of Police as well as to make another to the public prosecutor who, while agreeing with the request, will require the police to begin the investigations.

  33. 33.

    Art. 5 CCP.

  34. 34.

    Art. 5(4) CCP.

  35. 35.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 137 f.

  36. 36.

    Art. 29 CCP.

  37. 37.

    Art. 5(LIX) Const.

  38. 38.

    Art. 31 CCP.

  39. 39.

    Art. 129(I) Const.

  40. 40.

    Art. 30 CCP. According to Law 9.099/2005, as amended by Law 11.313/2006, minor offences are those punishable up to 2 years of imprisonment.

  41. 41.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 139.

  42. 42.

    Art. 5(5) CCP.

  43. 43.

    Art. 28 CCP.

  44. 44.

    See Art. 14(1) Resolution 77/2004, http://csmpf.pgr.mpf.mp.br/documentos-e-publicacoes/resolucoes/resol_77_set_2004.pdf.

  45. 45.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 539.

  46. 46.

    In this sense see already Lauria Tucci and Cruz e Tucci (1993), p. 25 ff.

  47. 47.

    For an overview of the main opinions expressed before and after the 1988 Constitution see Hassan Choukr (1995), p. 109 ff.

  48. 48.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 102 fn. 86.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., 168.

  50. 50.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 335.

  51. 51.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 169.

  52. 52.

    Chapter 9, D.

  53. 53.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 337 fn. 58.

  54. 54.

    The constitutional amendment reform 45/2004 enacted into the Constitution a new Article 103-A, which enables the Federal Supreme Tribunal to issue, either ex officio or upon request, binding precedents on constitutional law issues.

  55. 55.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 174.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., 173.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., 540.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., 543.

  59. 59.

    STF, Súmula vinculante No. 351.

  60. 60.

    Art. 360 CCP.

  61. 61.

    Art. 362 CCP.

  62. 62.

    Art. 227 CPC.

  63. 63.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 547 f.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., 548.

  65. 65.

    In this sense Marques da Silva (2008), p. 37.

  66. 66.

    Art. 361 CCP.

  67. 67.

    Delmanto Jr (2004), p. 152.

  68. 68.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 546.

  69. 69.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 128.

  70. 70.

    STF, HC 84.580-1/SP, rel. Celso de Mello.

  71. 71.

    Chapter 9, C.

  72. 72.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 559. Of a partially different opinion Nucci (2014), p. 767.

  73. 73.

    Art. 260 CCP. Against this solution see Lopes Jr (2017), p. 559 f.

  74. 74.

    Art. 396-A(2) CCP.

  75. 75.

    Art. 366 CCP (before 1996).

  76. 76.

    Art. 366 CCP.

  77. 77.

    Pacelli (2012), p. 613.

  78. 78.

    RE 460.971, rel. Sepúlveda Pertence.

  79. 79.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 552 ff.

  80. 80.

    Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 565 f. Similarly Lopes Jr (2017), p. 551, who points out that the Constitution did not empower the legislature to set forth further cases of offences that can be prosecuted without time limits.

  81. 81.

    In this sense cf. Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 930 f.

  82. 82.

    Moreover, the recent Law 12.683/2012 introduced an important derogation from the general suspension of time limits in cases of economic crimes under Law 9.613/98. For criticisms on this reform see Lopes Jr (2013), p. 762.

  83. 83.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 929 ff.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., 929; Lopes Jr (2017), p. 553 fn. 18.

  85. 85.

    In this sense see already Lopes Jr and Badaró (2009), p. 14.

  86. 86.

    Súmula No. 415.

  87. 87.

    Code’s reform project 4.207/2001.

  88. 88.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 760 f.

  89. 89.

    Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 565.

  90. 90.

    In this sense see Lopes Jr (2017), p. 354 f., who moreover invoked the Spanish rules on time limits for criminal offences, which provide for the interruption of the statutory limitations where the defendant, if also summoned by edict, does not appear in court and is formally declared absent (rebelde) (p. 354 fn. 21). Although the Spanish rebeldía also leads to the suspension of criminal proceedings, the declaration of absence does not entail—unlike in Brazil—the suspension of prescription, with the result that the time limit for the offence can lapse while the prosecution still suspended.

  91. 91.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 558.

  92. 92.

    Súmula No. 455.

  93. 93.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 557.

  94. 94.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 936.

  95. 95.

    Arts. 185 et seq. CCP.

  96. 96.

    Art. 6(V) CCP.

  97. 97.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 141.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Art. 4(IV) CCP.

  100. 100.

    Art. 201 CCP.

  101. 101.

    Scarance Fernandes (1995), p. 212.

  102. 102.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 454.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., 454 f. In the same sense Pacelli (2012), p. 425.

  104. 104.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 477 ff.

  105. 105.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 597.

  106. 106.

    Art. 186 CCP (old version).

  107. 107.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 446.

  108. 108.

    Art. 186 CCP (new version).

  109. 109.

    Art. 187 CCP (old version).

  110. 110.

    As we will see, a different method has been introduced since 2008 for witnesses’ examination.

  111. 111.

    Art. 188 CCP (new version).

  112. 112.

    For some criticisms on the vagueness of these legal requirements see Lopes Jr (2013), p. 650 f.

  113. 113.

    Art. 185(2)(II) CCP.

  114. 114.

    Art. 185(2)(III) CCP.

  115. 115.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 450 f.

  116. 116.

    Art. 185(4) CCP.

  117. 117.

    Art. 185(5) CCP.

  118. 118.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 651.

  119. 119.

    Art. 185(8) CCP.

  120. 120.

    Art. 217 CCP. It is worth noting, however, that in the practice the defendant is still often banned from the courtroom whenever the victim or the witness requests it. Hearings by videoconference are more used in other situations, e.g. where the examination concerns a victim or a witness residing in a place other than that in which the trial is held.

  121. 121.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 475.

  122. 122.

    Art. 201 CCP (old version).

  123. 123.

    Art. 201(4) CCP.

  124. 124.

    Art. 201(5) CCP.

  125. 125.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 656.

  126. 126.

    Art. 201(6) CCP.

  127. 127.

    See Lopes Jr (2017), p. 456.

  128. 128.

    Art. 212 CCP.

  129. 129.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 475.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., 476.

  131. 131.

    See STJ, REsp 1.259.482, rel. Marco Aurélio Bellize, which declared the proceedings void because the judge replaced the absent public prosecutor by putting questions to the witness. Cf. Lopes Jr (2017), p. 460.

  132. 132.

    STJ, HC 153.140, rel. Felix Fischer.

  133. 133.

    See STJ, HC 151.357, rel. Og Fernandes; STF, HC 110.623, rel. Ricardo Lewandowski.

  134. 134.

    For an overview of the case-law of the higher courts in this respect see Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 375 f.; Lopes Jr (2017), p. 458 ff.

  135. 135.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 442 f.

  136. 136.

    Art. 159(1) CCP.

  137. 137.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 428 f.

  138. 138.

    Art. 159(3) CCP.

  139. 139.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 426.

  140. 140.

    Art. 159(4) CCP.

  141. 141.

    Art. 159(5)(I) CCP.

  142. 142.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 558 ff.

  143. 143.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 429 fn. 12.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., 429.

  145. 145.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 558.

  146. 146.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 504.

  147. 147.

    Art. 479 CCP.

  148. 148.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 704.

  149. 149.

    Art. 204 CCP.

  150. 150.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 503 f.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., 384.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., 382 f.

  153. 153.

    Art. 12 CCP.

  154. 154.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 155.

  155. 155.

    Art. 155 CCP (old version).

  156. 156.

    Art. 157 CCP (old version).

  157. 157.

    Art. 155 CCP.

  158. 158.

    Lopes Jr (2001), p. 119 ff.; Polastri Lima (2002), p. 4 f.

  159. 159.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 163 f. It is noteworthy that Brazilian legislature enacted the proposal made by the ‘Grinover Commission’ (a Commission appointed in 2000 by the Ministry of Justice with the aim of elaborating guidelines for the reform of criminal justice). This proposal, however, left no room for the use of pre-trial evidence, except the sole cases of pre-trial evidence taken in the context of coercive measures, non-repeatable evidence and anticipated evidence. See Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 275.

  160. 160.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), I vol., 522 f.

  161. 161.

    For an overview of the case-law see Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 278 f.

  162. 162.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 165. In the same sense see already Pellegrini Grinover (1996), p. 239 f.

  163. 163.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 161 f.

  164. 164.

    Ibid., 162.

  165. 165.

    Chapter 9, G.II.

  166. 166.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 586 f.

  167. 167.

    Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 443 f.

  168. 168.

    Law 12.403/2011.

  169. 169.

    Art. 282(II)(3) CCP.

  170. 170.

    Pacelli (2012), p. 521.

  171. 171.

    Lopes Jr (2011), p. 16.

  172. 172.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 365.

  173. 173.

    Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 445.

  174. 174.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 587.

  175. 175.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 364.

  176. 176.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 587. Similarly Nucci (2014), p. 645.

  177. 177.

    Art. 311 CCP.

  178. 178.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 629 f.; Giacomolli (2014), p. 376 f.

  179. 179.

    Art. 311 CCP.

  180. 180.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 630. Of a different view Pacelli (2012), p. 519 f., who considers the lack of legitimation of the victim on the investigative stage incompatible with the Brazilian system of private legal action.

  181. 181.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 630.

  182. 182.

    Law 7.960/1989.

  183. 183.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 366.

  184. 184.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 588. In the same sense see already Pacelli (2012), p. 522.

  185. 185.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 593.

  186. 186.

    For in-depth analysis of the case-law cf. Jopes and Badaró (2009), p. 96 ff.

  187. 187.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 367.

  188. 188.

    Art. 5(LXXVIII) Const. See Giacomolli (2014), p. 366 ff.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., 368.

  190. 190.

    Art. 5(LXI) Const.

  191. 191.

    Art. 5(LXV) Const.

  192. 192.

    Art. 5(LXII) Const.

  193. 193.

    Art. 5(LXIII) Const.

  194. 194.

    Art. 310 CCP.

  195. 195.

    Art. 5(LXVI) Const.

  196. 196.

    Article 310 CCP expressed it literally before 2011. See Hassan Choukr (2011), p. 498.

  197. 197.

    Ibid., 499.

  198. 198.

    Ibid., 496.

  199. 199.

    Art. 5(LXIV) Const.

  200. 200.

    Giacomolli (2014), p. 364.

  201. 201.

    Pacelli (2012), p. 522.

  202. 202.

    Art. 1(I) Law 7.960/1989.

  203. 203.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 142.

  204. 204.

    Art. 2(6) Law 7.960/1989.

  205. 205.

    Art. 2(3) Law 7.960/1989.

  206. 206.

    Art. 5(LVIII) Const.

  207. 207.

    In the latter case, the identification is of course not of compulsory nature.

  208. 208.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 143.

  209. 209.

    Ibid., 144 ff. and 434.

  210. 210.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 312.

  211. 211.

    Ibid.

  212. 212.

    Ibid., 311 f.

  213. 213.

    Art. 5(LXVIII) Const.

  214. 214.

    Arts. 647 et seq. CCP.

  215. 215.

    See Pontes de Miranda (1979), p. 123 ff. Cf. also Lopes Jr (2017), p. 1109 f.

  216. 216.

    Arts. 340 et seq. 1932 CCP.

  217. 217.

    Law 2.033/1871.

  218. 218.

    Gimeno Sendra (2007), p. 537.

  219. 219.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 1334 f.

  220. 220.

    Art. 72(22) 1891 Const.

  221. 221.

    Tourinho Filho (2010), II vol., 522 ff.

  222. 222.

    Ibid., 526 f.

  223. 223.

    Lopes Jr (2013), p. 1342.

  224. 224.

    Ibid., 1342 ff.

  225. 225.

    On the use of habeas corpus in cases of coercion made by private people see Lopes Jr (2017), p. 1123 f.

  226. 226.

    Art. 656 CCP.

  227. 227.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 1131 f., who points out, moreover, that the STF has recently smoothed this doctrine in cases of manifest unlawfulness of coercion.

  228. 228.

    STJ, HC 93.557, rel. Arnaldo Esteves Lima.

  229. 229.

    STJ, HC 19.506, rel. Felix Fischer.

  230. 230.

    Lopes Jr (2017), p. 1133.

References

  • Casara R, Melchior AP (2013) Teoría do Processo Penal Brasileiro. Vol. I, Dogmática e Crítica: Conceitos Fundamentais. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmanto R Jr (2004) Inatividade no Processo Penal Brasileiro. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomolli NJ (2014) O devido processo penal. Abordagem conforme a Constituição Federal e o Pacto de São José da Costa Rica. Atlas S.A., São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno Sendra V (2007) Derecho procesal penal, 2nd edn. Colex, Majadahonda

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes LF, Mazzuoli V d O (2010) Comentários à convenção americana sobre direitos humanos: Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, 3rd edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan Choukr F (1995) Garantias constitucionais na investigação criminal. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan Choukr F (2011) Código de Processo Penal. Comentários Consolidados e Crítica Jurisprudencial, 5th edn. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauria Tucci R (2004) Direitos e garantias individuais no processo penal brasileiro. Saraiva, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauria Tucci R, Cruz e Tucci JR (1993) Devido Processo Legal e Tutela Jurisdicional. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes A Jr (2001) Sistemas de Investigação Preliminar no Processo Penal. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes A Jr (2011) O Novo Regime Jurídico da Prisão Processual, Liberdade Provisória e Medidas Cautelares Diversas. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes A Jr (2013) Direito Processual Penal, 10th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes A Jr (2017) Direito Processual Penal, 14th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes A Jr, Badaró GH (2009) Direito ao Processo Penal no Prazo Razoável, 2nd edn. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques da Silva IL (2008) Reforma Processual Penal de 2008. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraes Pitombo SM (1983) O indiciamento como Ato de Polícia Judiciária. Revista dos Tribunais 577:313–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Nucci G de Souza (2014) Código de Processo Penal Comentado. 13th edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacelli E (2012) Curso de Processo Penal, 16th edn. Atlas, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini Grinover A (1990) As garantias constitucionais do processo. In: Pellegrini Grinover A (ed) Novas tendências do direito processual. Forense Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, pp 1–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini Grinover A (1996) Influência do Código-Modelo de Processo Penal para Ibero-América na legislação latino-americana. Convergências e dissonâncias comos os sistemas italiano e brasileiro. In: Pellegrini Grinover A (ed) O Processo em Evolução. Forense Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, pp 218–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini Grinover A, Scarance Fernandes A, Magalhães Gomes Filho A (2001) As nulidades no processo penal, 7th edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimenta Lopes MV (2013) A paridade de armas no processo penal. www.conteudojuridico.com.br

  • Polastri Lima M (2002) A Prova Penal. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontes de Miranda FC (1979) História e Prática do Habeas Corpus, 8th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarance Fernandes A (1995) O papel da vítima no processo criminal. Malheiros, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarance Fernandes A (2010) Processo penal constitucional, 6th edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourinho Filho F da Costa (2010) Código de Processo Penal Comentado vol I–II, 10th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Authors
  1. Stefano Ruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2017). Participatory Rights in Brazilian Law and the Requirements of contradictoire and Full Defence in Criminal Proceedings. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation