Reasons for a veto
Organizations analyze setbacks of law defining terrorism in Brazil; approved by Congress in February, the bill now awaits signature of President Dilma Rousseff
Approved with fast-track status in Congress, Bill 2016/2015, which defines the crime of terrorism in Brazil and the penalties for offenses, is disproportionate, far-reaching and could be used to persecute groups that protest for more rights. This is the conclusion reached in a technical statement released today that explains the reasons why President Dilma Rousseff should fully veto the bill.
Described as the “greatest political-criminal setback since redemocratization in 1998”, the bill sets extremely harsh sentences for crimes already covered by Brazil’s Criminal Code and grants police authorities and judges broad powers to interpret what is and what is not a terrorist act.
According to the organizations that signed the statement, not even the so-called “safeguard” for social movements represents any guarantee that the freedoms of assembly, expression and association will be preserved.
“Against a backdrop of rising political tensions on the streets and heavy police repression of legitimate protests, the approval of this law represents a serious risk of democratic setbacks,” said Rafael Custódio, coordinator of the Justice program at Conectas.
“In the manner it was approved, the text paves the way for the misuse of the justice system for the political persecution of numerous organizations that, until they can prove their innocence, will have their work inhibited. And if there is a risk for organizations that are incorporated as companies, imagine the situation for the small groups that are organized independently and voluntarily.”
According to Custódio, the safeguard does not cover conduct such as endorsement and preparatory acts – two of the most serious points of the law. On the first point, the law establishes a sentence of 13 years and four months in prison for anyone who praises or encourages, on the internet, a demonstration considered a terrorist act, even though they do not actually participate. The second conduct, meanwhile, can result in punishments for acts that the authorities deem preparatory, involving the exercise of foresight for an act that may or may not take place.
“We have reached the absurd in establishing harsher sentences for an alleged crime, for example sharing a post on Facebook in support of a protest, than for manslaughter,” said Custódio. “It is inconceivable that a bill that is so far-reaching, disproportionate and dangerous for democracy was approved in a period of just eight months, without any discussion with society. There is no solution for this law other than a complete veto,” he concluded.
Besides Conectas, the other organizations that signed the statement were: the Criminal Justice Network, IDDD (Defense of the Right to a Defense Institute), ITTC (Land, Employment and Citizenship Institute), ARP (Association for Prison Reform), Justiça Global, Sou da Paz Institute, DDH (Defenders of Human Rights Institute), AJD (Association of Judges for Democracy), CONIC (National Council of Christian Churches of Brazil), PAD (Process of Articulation and Dialogue), MST (Rural Landless Workers Movement) and DHESCA Brasil (Human Rights Platform).
