“The law requires the deposition of the Government to configure a coup d’etat crime,” says Fux in vote

“The law requires the deposition of the Government to configure a coup d’etat crime,” says Fux in vote

Minister Luiz Fux of the Federal Supreme Court defended on Wednesday that the abolition crime of the rule of law “punishes deliberately conducted to guide the nation to an authoritarian internship”, and should be rejected “expanding interpretation to understand the conduct that configure the simple impresses.

According to Fux, the attempt to try to configure an attempt crime, with the use of violence or serious threat, to abolish the state of democratic law, preventing or limiting the exercise of constitutional powers, the government has legitimately constituted when it is qualified by violence on the threat and consistent with the conduct capable of eliminating all the basic institutions of the democratic law and “closes everything”, he said. “Providing the freedom of expression, the right legal process, the separation of powers, the alternation of power through free and Eque elections.”

On the other hand, according to Fux, the incidence of the crime could not be considered to try to testify, through violence or a serious threat, the government legitimately constituted for “absence of deposition of a legitimately established government, under the penalty of violation of article 5 of the Constitution. The deposition of the government is what the law requires”, he noticed.

In this line, Fux has reflected that the state strokes do not derive from “isolated acts”, but from organized groups, which require concrete means of execution, as if in case of military coup or foreign interference. In this line, the minister claimed that organized groups have an advantage over the disorganized groups when it comes to the deposition of the government. Therefore, “scattered disordered curves or initiatives do not constitute a blow,” said the minister.

Before taking into consideration, Fux stressed that “there is no crime without a previous law, no penalty without conviction”, underlining that the judge is forbidden to “distort the semantic limits established by the legislator to punish any error”. “If the judge is embarrassed to make an extra reasoning, or if he does it alone, everything becomes certain and dark,” he observed.

Source: Terra

You may also like