Setback from a setback

Organizations react to Lower House bill that broadens scope and toughens penalties of Anti-Terrorism Law

Sixty social movements and organizations have criticized Bill 5,065/16 sponsored by Congressman Hugo Leal that broadens the scope and the penalties established in the Anti-Terrorism Law, which was signed by former President Dilma Rousseff in March 2016.

According to the organizations, which at the time described the new law as “the greatest criminal policy setback since redemocratization”, the new bill steps up the repression of protests and the criminalization of demonstrators and activists.

The final version of the bill was submitted to the Public Security and Combating Organized Crime Committee on Tuesday, June 20, and it does not incorporate any of the criticisms made by civil society representatives in the public hearing staged in the Lower House on May 30.

One of the most criticized changes is the removal of the list of acts that constitute the crime of terrorism, broadening its scope and increasing the possibilities for its application (see table below).

In a public statement released on Tuesday, June 27, the organizations said that the new wording expands “the broad and generic nature of the law”. “If any group can commit terrorist acts for any reason, all it takes is a conservative interpretation by the arbiter of the law for social movements and demonstrators to be charged and suffer the extremely harsh penalties of the law.”

• Click here to read the full statement published today by the organizations.

Another change proposed by the sponsor is the removal from the text of a safeguard that, while insufficient from the viewpoint of the organizations, provided some protection for demonstrators, activists and representatives of social movements or trade union, religious, industry or professional groups.

In its place, Leal proposes a completely new paragraph, isolating and increasing the penalties for cases of terrorist acts committed against employees of civil or military public institutions. Under the current law, the penalty varies from 12 to 30 years imprisonment. In the bill presented by the congressman, it is increased to between 20 and 30 years (see table below).

According to Juana Kweitel, executive director of Conectas Human Rights, which also signed the joint public statement, “we are facing a unique situation of a setback from a setback”.

“We already considered the Anti-Terrorism Law an unnecessary, generic and abusive piece of legislation. If the changes are approved by Congress, it will further extend the harmful effects that the law will have on fundamental freedoms and guarantees in Brazil, particularly at a time when protests are escalating,” she said.

The bill submitted by Hugo Leal is already on the voting agenda of the Public Security and Combating Organized Crime Committee and could be analyzed at its session tomorrow, June 28. The bill also needs to be submitted to the Constitution and Justice Committee before being voted in a full session of the Lower House. The first version of Bill 5,065/16, submitted by Congressman Edson Moreira, was rejected by the Foreign Relations Committee in December 2016.

Background

The Anti-Terrorism Law was first submitted to Congress in 2015 by the ministries of Justice and Finance, which were occupied at the time by José Eduardo Cardoso and Joaquim Levy. The bill was fast-tracked and approved with minor alterations just two months later.

To justify the law, the government claimed it was responding to a recommendation made by FATF (Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) – an organization that is not part of the United Nations system and whose decisions are not binding. According to FATF, the country needed to strengthen its legislation to prevent the financing of terrorist activities.

• Click here to learn more about the role of FATF in the approval of the Anti-Terrorism Law in Brazil.

In the Senate, the bill was sponsored by Aloysio Nunes, who is now Minister of Foreign Relations in the government of Michel Temer. He made changes to the bill that imposed even harsher penalties and withdrew all safeguards for social movements and organizations. The text was approved by the Senators in October 2015.

However, the changes made by the senators were rejected in the Lower House in early 2016. The original bill was then signed into law by the then President Dilma Rousseff and, with a small number of vetoes, it came into effect on March 16 of the same year.

Compare the differences between the text of the current law and the bill proposed by Congressman Hugo Leal:

Anti-Terrorism Law (13,260/2016)	Bill sponsored by Hugo Leal (5,065/16)
Article 2.  Terrorism consists of the practice by one or more individuals of the acts set forth in this article, due to reasons of xenophobia, discrimination or prejudice based on race, skin color, ethnicity and religion, when committed for the purpose of provoking social or widespread terror, exposing people or property to danger or posing a threat to public safety or public peace.	Article 2. Terrorism consists of the practice by one or more individuals of the acts set forth in this article, through physical force or psychological actions, for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the public authorities, the civilian population or any segment of society, provoking social or widespread terror or exposing people or property to danger or posing a threat to public safety and public peace.
Paragraph 1. Acts of terrorism are: (…) Penalty – imprisonment of twelve to thirty years, as well as punishments corresponding to the threat or the violence.	Paragraph 1. Acts of terrorism, punishable by imprisonment of twelve to thirty years, as well as punishments corresponding to the threat and the violence, are: (…)
IV – sabotage the operation or seize with violence, serious threat to people or the use of cybernetic mechanisms, the total or partial control, albeit temporary, of means of communication or transport, ports, airports, railroad or bus stations, hospitals, health clinics, schools, sports stadiums, public facilities or places where essential public services are rendered, power generation or transmission facilities, military installations, oil and gas exploration, processing and refining facilities and banking institutions and their service networks; and V – attack the life or the physical integrity of people.	IV – sabotage the operation or seize with violence, serious threat to people or the use of cybernetic mechanisms, the total or partial control, albeit temporary, of means of communication or of transport, of roads, highways, waterways and railroads, or of ports, airports, railroad or bus stations, hospitals, health clinics, schools, sports stadiums, civil or military public facilities, or places where essential public services are rendered, dams, power generation or transmission facilities, oil and gas exploration, processing and refining facilities and banking institutions and their service networks; and V – attack the life or the physical integrity of people.
Paragraph 2. The provisions in this article do not apply to the individual or collective conduct of people in political demonstrations, social movements or trade union, religious, industry or professional groups driven by social purposes or voicing demands, with a view to contesting, criticizing, protesting or supporting, with the goal of defending constitutional rights, guarantees and freedoms, without prejudice to the criminal classification established by law.	Paragraph 2. Acts of terrorism, punishable by imprisonment of twenty to thirty years, as well as punishments corresponding to the threat and the violence, are:I – attack, with serious threat to people or violence, with the use of a firearm, an explosive or incendiary device, the life, the physical integrity, the freedom and the free action of employees of civil or military public institutions; and II – attack, with the use of a firearm, an explosive or incendiary device, civil or military public facilities.