{"id":22003,"date":"2020-07-11T19:01:10","date_gmt":"2020-07-11T19:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=noticia&p=22003"},"modified":"2021-04-01T15:11:33","modified_gmt":"2021-04-01T15:11:33","slug":"national-justice-council-bans-custody-hearings-by-video-conference-2","status":"publish","type":"noticia","link":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/noticias\/national-justice-council-bans-custody-hearings-by-video-conference-2\/","title":"National Justice Council bans custody hearings by video conference","content":"

The CNJ (National Justice Council) approved on Friday, July 10, a resolution that <\/span>bans pre-trial custody hearings from being held by video conference<\/b> during the coronavirus pandemic.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The ban observes the provisions in the <\/span>Code of Criminal Procedur<\/span>e<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/a> and <\/span>Resolution 213\/15<\/span><\/strong><\/a>. Most of the Council members <\/span>voted in line with Justice Dias Toffoli<\/b>, the president of both the CNJ and the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Established in 2015, the custody hearing is a procedure that serves to <\/span>assess the legality of the detention<\/b> and whether the detained person has been <\/span>subjected to acts of torture<\/b> or other types of degrading treatment during the police contact.\u00a0 This assessment must be carried out by a judge within 24 hours of the arrest.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is concluded, therefore, that the video conference system conflicts with the essential purpose of the custody hearing, which is not only to determine the legality of the detention and whether it should continue, but also to verify the occurrence of torture and mistreatment,\u201d said Toffoli in his vote.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Support from civil society<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Council\u2019s decision is <\/span>in line with the position of more than 150 civil society organizations <\/b>that opposed holding virtual hearings.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an <\/span>official letter submitted in Jun<\/a>e<\/span><\/strong>, the organizations argued that the procedure in this format would not fulfill its function, both because it would not be possible for the judge to identify evidence of torture and because it would not guarantee an adequate environment for listening to the detained person.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n