“Filipe Martins can be defined as a political prisoner”, says expert

The arrest of Jair Bolsonaro’s (PL) former advisor, Filipe Martins – in prison since February 8 due to a trip that never took place – can be considered a political prison, showing signs that the Democratic Rule of Law in Brazil is being increasingly weakened and freedom of protest destroyed. This is the vision of the doctor in Political Science from USP, Marcelo José Suano.

Professor of International Relations and political analyst interviewed by People’s Gazettethe expert states that there are several definitions for the term “political prisoner”, but that they all converge to situations involving “a character, a leader or someone who expresses himself about a certain political regime in which he is inserted and presents its flaws, therefore being judged and penalized.”

According to the expert, the reason for the arrest of these individuals is not a common crime described in the country’s legislation, such as robbery or murder, for example. The cause would be to present an opinion on the political situation of the country in which he lives, on issues involving decisions by authorities or something like that, “emphasizing that one cannot offend the honor of those who are being observed and about whom it was issued. opinion or evaluation”, he pointed out.

“They are now being persecuted because they challenged a political order, which is considered an attack on the regime”, explains Suano, pointing out that the existence of political prisoners shows that we no longer live in a Democratic State of Law, where there are unshakable freedoms, such as the free manifestation of thought.

After all, “democracy is the power of the people through the control they have over their rulers, and fundamental rights are the only way to exercise this control”, he adds.

What happened to Filipe Martins?

Martins was preventively arrested during Operation Tempus Veritatis — carried out two months ago — on the grounds that he had left the country on an official plane on December 30, 2022 without going through immigration controls. However, he handed over to the authorities documents proving his stay in Brazil, such as the plane ticket he issued from Brasília to Curitiba the day after the alleged trip. Furthermore, Latam Airlines itself confirmed that the former advisor boarded the plane heading to Paraná.

The arrest request issued by Alexandre de Moraes also states that the incarceration of the former advisor would be necessary to guarantee public order and promote criminal investigation, preventing the person being investigated from altering any evidence. However, jurists such as Doctor of State Law Rodrigo Chemim characterized the reasoning presented as “superficial”.

“According to prevailing jurisprudence, it is understood that it is possible to preventively arrest someone to avoid repeating criminal behavior”, explains Chemim. “But this occurs when there is some concrete data that shows a high probability of this criminal reiteration, and in the decision I did not see any argument along these lines”, says the expert, who is a professor of Criminal Procedure at Universidade Positivo (UP).

Furthermore, Filipe Martins’ defense guarantees that the former advisor’s freedom does not put the investigations or the country’s order at risk, as he no longer holds a public position or influence, and has already had several assets seized during the investigation. “Cellphones, tablets and other items were captured”, says lawyer Ricardo Scheiffer, also mentioning that the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) even issued a favorable opinion for his provisional release on March 1st.

The statement was signed by the attorney general, Paulo Gonet Branco, and forwarded to the office of Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF). However, the minister did not revoke the arrest, keeping the former advisor in a cell at the Penal Medical Complex (CMA), in Pinhais, Paraná, for 60 days.

“All based on a process full of assumptions, something that is not allowed in a democracy”, points out political scientist Suano. “With all due respect, fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence should be taken into consideration by a democratic rule of law”, he highlights.

According to him, what is happening is “Martins’ presumption of guilt”, since the boy has proven from the beginning that he was not absent from Brazil. “For him to have the duty to explain that he is not guilty is an inversion of values ​​and an inversion of the process”, warns the professor, highlighting that, in this scenario, the figure of a political prisoner exists. “The legal regime in a democracy would not allow a person to be arrested or prosecuted for assumptions.”

Still according to the scholar, another fact that constitutes “political imprisonment” is the disregard of the evidence presented by the defense. “If it is demonstrated that the accusations are unfounded, but the arrest is maintained, we really are no longer in a Democratic State of Law”, he reiterates. “This demonstrates that democracy is dying because the right to protest has died and the right to gather to talk nonsense about issues of any nature has also died.”

“This demonstrates that democracy is dead because protest is dead and the right to get together to talk nonsense about issues of any nature is dead too.”

What are the arguments used by Moraes to maintain Filipe Martins’ arrest?

Gazeta do Povo had access to the Federal Police (PF) report to verify the arguments used to state that Filipe had allegedly fled the country. According to the report, on the date Martins boarded the presidential plane for the United States, without going through immigration, there is information about the former advisor’s entry into the Palácio da Alvorada at 9:14 am, with no record of departure.

Sought by Gazeta do Povo, the defense stated that this could occur due to several factors throughout the day and that the lawyer himself had already entered the Palace and did not register his exit. “If that were conclusive evidence, I would still be there today,” claims Scheiffer.

The PF document also informs that, at the time it made inquiries at the house of Martins’ parents, they said they were “the only residents of the place and that their son Filipe was residing abroad, without providing further details”. The defense stated that the parents are elderly and that documents have proven that the statement is untrue.

Furthermore, federal agents consulted the North American website I-94, with travel data made available by the United States Department of Homeland Security, and that “the aforementioned website confirmed the entry record of Filipe Martins on 12/30/ 2022 by the city of Orlando, United States”.

However, the platform’s Terms of Use inform that it is “not an official source”, that it does not present all existing information regarding flights entering and leaving the United States and that “it cannot be used for legal purposes”. In its rules, it is even written that improper use can be considered a crime.

“So much so that the same website does not present data on the last trip that the former advisor actually took with the president on September 21, 2022 and which is mentioned in the PF report”, points out the defense lawyer, when also reporting that he delivered sent a series of documents to the Federal Police on February 19 that contradict the claim of an alleged escape.

“We showed the plane tickets from Brasília to Curitiba in his and his wife’s name, dated December 31, 2022, as well as proof of checked baggage, and the confirmation message from the airline”, he informs. Photos of the couple with friends in the Ponta Grossa region were also sent.

“Arbitrary arrest and abuse of power”, says jurist

These arguments were analyzed by Criminal Law professor Gauthama Fornaciari, who has worked in the criminal area for 20 years and states that “the defense proved that the person being investigated did not travel in a delegation to the United States, but to Curitiba, as declared by the airline” .

This, according to the expert, undermined the PF’s arguments regarding “the absence of registration of departure from Alvorada the previous day, the allegation about a statement made by the parents that was denied by them and the mere inclusion of his name on a list of passengers from Department of Homeland Securitywhich are precarious records, without official character and about something that did not materialize”, he explains, while also citing “lack of contemporaneity” of the facts due to the date of the “supposed escape” and the arrest, carried out “without complications on the 8th of February 2024, in national territory”.

The PF report also states that Martins’ arrest took place in his partner’s apartment in Ponta Grossa/PR in possession of few belongings, and that this would allow an easy change of location, as the municipality “is located approximately 461 kilometers away away from the city of Dionísio Cerqueira, on the border with Argentina, and 551 kilometers to the city of Guaíra, on the border with Paraguay”.

However, the jurist points out that the distances cited are “significantly long” and that “considering the risk of flight just because of this circumstance is mere conjecture”. Furthermore, he recalls that Brazil has a protocol of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with Mercosur countries and that none of the elements mentioned demonstrate a risk of escape for pre-trial detention.

“What we see is an unequivocal illegal constraint”, he states. “And this means that it is an arbitrary arrest with abuse of power”, continues Gauthama, also reporting the STF decision of October 13, 2015 regarding the “impossibility of declaring preventive detention based solely on the presumption of escape”.

There is a lack of international consensus regarding political prisoners in Brazil

However, despite the arbitrariness pointed out by experts, political scientist Alexandre Pires, professor of International Relations at Ibmec SP, explains that it is not possible to use the term “political prisoner” in Brazil currently, as other countries with liberal democratic regimes would need to see this reality in the country to confirm it.

After all, “unless there is some international consensus that Brazil began (or returned) to having an exceptional regime, it would hardly be technically possible to classify the arrest of any person in Brazil today as a political prison”, points out Pires, when affirm that “all of them have been anchored, for better or worse, in our criminal legislation”.

According to him, what could formalize this international consensus, however, would be the approval of an amnesty law by Congress. “This would show that there is a political prison here, which would lead to a reclassification of the operating conditions of Brazilian political institutions”, since, “in liberal democracies there are, by definition, no crimes of opinion, especially opinions about the exercise of power” , ends.