The minister of the Superior Tribunal of Justiça (STJ) once again questioned the practice of filing criminal cases using only the initials of the defendants, when there is no legal basis for concealing their identities. The criticism came during the judgment of an appeal from two defendants convicted of robbery. This specific case involved a robbery with an aggravating factor, a serious crime that, according to the minister, does not meet the criteria requiring the protection of privacy or the prevention of harm to the defendant.
Lack of Transparency Criticized
The minister Rogerio Schietti Cruz stated that he has been criticizing the anonymization of accusees for years, and in this case, the names of the defendants appeared in full in the parties’ representations, in the indictment, and in the sentence. The case did not involve minors, sexual offenses, or domestic violence, and thus, the restriction was deemed unjustified and compromised the publicity of the trial. By obscuring the names in the judicial system, the transparency that characterizes the public justice system is eroded, preventing the community from understanding the adjudication of serious crimes.
“Society has the right to know who is being judged here at the STJ,” said Minister Schietti. He emphasized that this right to know is fundamental to the functioning of the Judiciary, as it allows for the oversight of the institution by the citizens it serves. The minister argued that the anonymity used in this instance was a bureaucratic choice that had no legal grounding in the specific facts of the robbery case.
Appeal Rejected
The defense of the two convicted individuals argued that the conviction was based on a recognition that did not follow the formalities of Article 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They claimed that there was a divergence between the understanding of the 6th panel and the precedents of the 5th panel, as well as the orientation established by the 3rd section in Tema 1.258. The defense contended that the recognition process was flawed from its inception, lacking the necessary procedural guarantees to validate the identification of the perpetrators.
Related: Retail Crisis and Bankruptcy Law Usage
However, the 3rd section unanimously rejected the appeal. The relator concluded that there was no similarity between the case and the paradigms presented by the defense. Unlike the precedents, which dealt with convictions based on recognition without independent evidence of authorship, the lower courts in this case had registered the existence of other elements considered sufficient to corroborate the authorship. The relator found that the conviction was supported by a broader context of evidence, distinct from the isolated recognition criticized by the defense.
Accepting the defense’s argument that these elements were non-existent or insufficient would require re-examining the factual and probative evidence, a procedure prohibited by the STJ’s Súmula 7. This summary rule dictates that the decision of a higher court generally cannot be overturned based on the mere existence of a divergence in reasoning if the material facts and evidence remain unchanged. Therefore, the court upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that the procedural errors alleged did not invalidate the conviction.
Clarifications Sought
Following Minister Schietti’s statement, the president of the 3rd section, Minister Joel Ilan Paciornik, stated that he would seek clarification from the Secretariat on why this practice was adopted by the Court. Earlier, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office also questioned the anonymization of the accusers before the relator’s vote. This dual questioning from both the bench and the prosecution suggests a systemic issue within the court’s administrative procedures regarding document handling.
The orientation established in Tema 1.258 states that the rules of Article 226 of the CPC are mandatory, and an invalid recognition cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of independent evidence. However, the relator observed that this orientation does not dispense with the demonstration of factual similarity between the appealed decision and the paradigms invoked. The court reiterated that even with strict procedural adherence, the judgment must align with the precedents established in similar cases, which was not satisfied in this instance.
