Politics

PGR protests against Silveira’s pre-trial detention appeal | Politics

Published

on

reproduction

MP Daniel Silveira (DEM-DF) wearing a T-shirt featuring President Jair Bolsonaro

The Attorney General’s Office (PGR) upheld the decision of the Minister Alexander de Moraes of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), which on June 24 ordered the preliminary detention of Federal MP Daniel Silveira (PSL-RJ).

On the 31st, Moraes rejected a petition by Silveira’s defense to reopen the case and left the prisoner as Deputy Poketnarist. The minister considered that the reasons leading to the arrest of the congressman – the threat to institutions and democracy – had not changed, and that the situation was aggravated by the news that Silveira had asked for political asylum outside Brazil.

However, it took a while for the deputy’s defense to file a new complaint against this decision. Thus, PGR considered the request “out of time”, meaning it was submitted after the deadline.

“The five-day period provided for in Article 39 of Law 8.038 / 1990 has long expired, counting from the date of the application itself, in which the plaintiff asked to reconsider the decision of June 24, 2021,” Medeiros said.

Convicted by the Federal Attorney’s Office, Silveira was initially arrested in February for posting a video on social media insulting and threatening STF ministers and for defending anti-democratic measures. The measure was subsequently superseded by house arrest using electronic ankle bracelets.

However, in June, house arrest was canceled for non-payment of the agreed bond, and after more than 30 violations of electronic surveillance equipment were recorded related to the charging of the device, the activation zone and the violation of the device seal.

In the decision confirming Silveira’s arrest, Moraes reiterated that the criminal acts committed by Silveira are “very serious” because “they have not only achieved dignity, but they also pose an illegal security threat” to the Supreme Court justices, ”they also have there was a clear intention to obstruct the activities of the judiciary. “

Click to comment

Trending

Exit mobile version