ABUSOS JUDICIAIS
CERCEIAM PARTES
STJ ANULA ACÓRDÃO TJ SP
REsp 2.136.836/SP
PODCAST GEMINI
"It is not the party who should pay for the system's failure"
LEGAL ANALYSIS – NULLITIES DUE TO DENIAL OF DEFENSE IN VIRTUAL JUDGMENT (STJ – REsp 2.136.836/SP)
by CHATGPT AI
Procedural Nullity Due to Violation of Adversarial System and Full Defense
STJ – REsp 2.136.836/SP:
In the referenced decision, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recognized the nullity of a judgment delivered in a virtual session, without prior notice to the parties, considering that speed in the proceedings cannot override due process and the adversarial principle.
The Court determined that procedural acts conducted without the opportunity for the parties to present arguments or request oral arguments violate the constitutional guarantees of full defense (Art. 5, LV of the Federal Constitution) and must be declared null and void.
Key Excerpt from the Decision:
> “... the fact that the judgment was rendered in a virtual session, without prior notification to the parties, even with the defendant’s lawyer being registered for electronic notifications, led to a lack of opportunity to exercise full defense and contradict the plaintiff's claims, which should have occurred in a conventional physical session or, at a minimum, through express notification regarding the judgment schedule and environment.”
Legal Grounds and Implications:
Violation of the principles of due process of law, contradictory proceedings, and full defense;
Incompatibility of judgment without notice with Art. 5, LIV and LV of the Federal Constitution;
Resolutions CNJ No. 312 and 314/2020 reinforce the need for express notification in virtual environments;
Prejudice is presumed in cases where the party is prevented from presenting arguments;
The principle of motivated decisions (Art. 93, IX of the Constitution) is also compromised if the judge fails to consider omitted arguments due to procedural irregularities.
Relevance for Similar Cases:
This decision is directly applicable to cases in which:
1. A party is excluded from procedural participation without proper notification;
2. There is manipulation of electronic procedural systems to block access to information, appeals, or motions;
3. There is an absence of an impartial and previously established judge;
4. There is denial of access to justice, especially when the party is pro se or lacks technical legal support.
Use in International Petitions:
The decision is of strategic relevance for demonstrating internal procedural violations of basic rights.
It allows for:
Reference in complaints before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and United Nations Special Rapporteurs;
Establishment of state responsibility for procedural nullities that result in irreparable damage;
Application of international principles of judicial ethics, such as those of Bangalore, requiring impartial and transparent judicial proceedings.
Conclusion:
The STJ reaffirms that any judicial act that impairs defense without express and regular notification is invalid and must be declared null.
This reinforces the minimum procedural guarantees and constitutional legitimacy of any judicial decision.
-------
Comprehensive Analysis of Procedural
Nullities: Implications for the Rule of Law and the Credibility of Justice
By GEMINI AI
I. Introduction
This report offers a comprehensive legal analysis of procedural nullities, examining their nature, causes, consequences, and implications for the integrity and efficiency of justice systems, both in Brazil (Civil Law system) and in key Common Law jurisdictions (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia). The objective is to transcend the mere description of legal defects to a deeper understanding of their systemic impact on the Rule of Law, human rights, and judicial ethics.
The analysis begins with a detailed examination of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruling in Special Appeal (REsp) No. 2.136.836/SP. This case serves as a crucial starting point, illustrating a fundamental procedural nullity: the lack of adequate notification for a virtual judgment session. The STJ recognized the nullity because the judgment occurred just one day after the case was distributed, without prior notification to the parties' lawyers, which prevented them from objecting to the virtual format, submitting memorials, or making oral arguments.
The STJ's decision explicitly emphasized that judicial expediency cannot override the constitutional guarantees of due process and ample defense. This statement lays the groundwork for a broader discussion on the balance between efficiency and fundamental rights in judicial proceedings. The STJ's decision to annul a judgment, despite the stated goal of judicial expediency , reveals a central tension in modern justice systems. The court stated that "expediency does not authorize the disregard of rules that guarantee the observance of due process." This is not merely a procedural correction; it is a reaffirmation of the constitutional hierarchy of rights over efficiency. The swift, unnotified virtual judgment exemplifies how technological advancements, if not carefully managed, can inadvertently undermine fundamental safeguards such as the right to be heard and the right to oral arguments. The broader implication is that while judiciaries seek the quickest resolution of disputes, this pursuit must always be constrained and subordinated to the fundamental principles of due process and ample defense, as the erosion of these principles undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.
II. Nullity Due to Lack of Notification: Detailed Analysis in Brazilian Law
The Specific Case: Denial of Defense and Virtual Judgment (REsp No.
2.136.836/SP)
The STJ case (REsp No. 2.136.836/SP) involved the virtual judgment of an appeal that took place without the required prior notification to the parties' lawyers. The judgment was rendered on September 23, 2020, just one day after the case was distributed, and even before the notification of distribution was published.
This procedural failure deprived the appellants of their right to object to the virtual judgment, submit written memorials, or make oral arguments. They argued that this opportunity could have altered the outcome of the judgment, especially regarding moral damages. The STJ emphasized that the lack of notification constituted "denial of defense" and "surprise judgment," considering the prejudice evident. The court cited Resolutions of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) No. 312/2020 and No. 314/2020, as well as Article 935 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which establish a minimum period of 5 (five) days between the date of publication of the agenda and the judgment session, applicable to both in-person and virtual sessions.
Legal and Jurisprudential Foundations of Nullity Due to Lack of Notification
In Brazil, the principle of due process (contradictory and ample defense) is constitutionally guaranteed (CF/88, art. 5º, LV). Adequate notification is a fundamental pillar of these rights, ensuring that parties are aware of procedural acts and can respond to them in a timely manner. The STJ's jurisprudence consistently reinforces the need for adequate notification. The absence of notification, especially when expressly requested by a lawyer, leads to nullity. The STJ has also addressed the "pocket nullity" doctrine, where a party, aware of a defect, strategically withholds their objection until an unfavorable outcome. While this doctrine seeks to prevent bad faith, it does not nullify the fundamental right to notification if actual prejudice is demonstrated. A critical aspect is the right to be informed of procedural acts, as highlighted in a case where the STJ allowed the use of a writ of mandamus against a decision that did not analyze an allegation of nullity due to lack of notification of an interested third party, emphasizing the "clear and certain right to be informed of procedural acts."
The Brazilian legal system operates under the principle of "pas de nullité sans grief" (no nullity without prejudice). Although the STJ in the main case considered the prejudice "patent" due to the lack of opportunity for defense, other cases highlight the "pocket nullity" doctrine, which rejects nullity claims if the party was aware of the defect and only raised it after an unfavorable outcome. This creates a tension: how concrete must the "prejudice" be, and when does a party's inaction nullify a fundamental right? Research points to a lack of uniformity in defining "prejudice," leading to "legal uncertainty" and "casuistic decisions." This ambiguity in applying a central principle (prejudice) can, paradoxically, undermine the very rights it seeks to protect, resulting in inconsistent and potentially arbitrary judicial decisions. The implication is that while the "no nullity without prejudice" rule is sound in theory, its practical application requires clearer guidelines to ensure predictability and maintain public trust.
The Doctrine of Procedural Nullities in the Brazilian CPC
Brazilian procedural law, particularly the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), does not explicitly classify nullities as absolute or relative. However, doctrine and jurisprudence distinguish them based on the nature of the violated rule (public order versus private interest) and the possibility of validation.
Absolute nullities, such as lack of summons or acts performed by an absolutely incompetent judge, can be declared ex officio and are generally considered incurable, although some can be remedied by repeating the act. The principle of "instrumentality of forms" guides the treatment of procedural defects, emphasizing that an act should not be declared null if it achieved its
purpose and caused no prejudice to the parties. This principle aims to avoid excessive formalism and promote efficiency.
The "instrumentality of forms" doctrine is a cornerstone of Brazilian procedural law, aiming to avoid nullities based on mere formalism if the act achieved its purpose and caused no prejudice. However, the STJ's decision in the case , where a swift virtual judgment was annulled despite the potential for efficiency, demonstrates the limits of this doctrine. When the procedural defect (lack of notification) is so fundamental that it compromises essential constitutional principles of due process and ample defense , the "purpose" of the act (a fair trial) is inherently frustrated, and prejudice is presumed or easily demonstrated. This highlights that while the system seeks efficiency, it cannot sacrifice fundamental rights. The implication is that "instrumentality of forms" is a valuable principle for minor irregularities, but it cannot be invoked to cure violations that undermine the very essence of due process, reinforcing the idea that procedural rules serve a higher purpose than mere bureaucratic conformity.
III. Other Essential Procedural Nullities: Brazilian and Comparative Perspectives
Lack of Summons (Citation)
In Brazil, the absence or defect of summons (the initial formal notification of a lawsuit) is considered a serious and absolute nullity, as it violates the fundamental principles of due process and ample defense. However, this nullity can be cured by the spontaneous appearance of the defendant in court, provided there is no demonstrable prejudice. This reflects the principle of "instrumentality of forms," which prioritizes effective knowledge and the opportunity for defense over strict observance of the initial formal act.
In Common Law systems, proper "service of process" (equivalent to summons) is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Failure to properly notify a defendant can render the entire proceeding void. The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters provides the primary framework for international service among signatory states, often being the exclusive means. Methods include service through a Central Authority, postal channels, or direct service. The U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 4) govern domestic service, and specific rules apply to foreign defendants, emphasizing methods "reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice." The concept of "nullity of notice" also extends to employment law in Canada, where inadequate notice of termination can lead to significant damages.
The distinction in the treatment of "lack of summons/notice" between Brazil and Common Law jurisdictions reveals different approaches to jurisdictional formalism. In Brazil, although it is a serious nullity, it can be "cured" by spontaneous appearance , reflecting a pragmatic view where the ultimate goal of notification and defense outweighs the initial procedural defect. In Common Law, particularly in the U.S., proper "service of process" is often a strict jurisdictional prerequisite , where failure can render the entire proceeding void ab initio, placing a greater emphasis on initial formal compliance to establish legitimate authority over the defendant. The implication is that Civil Law systems like Brazil tend to be more flexible in allowing procedural defects to be remedied if the underlying purpose is fulfilled and no real prejudice occurs, while Common Law systems often maintain a stricter adherence to initial procedural steps to ensure due process and proper jurisdiction from the outset.
Failure to Analyze Defense Arguments
In Brazil, a judge's failure to analyze all defense arguments (defensive theses) constitutes nullity, as it violates the constitutional requirement of reasoned decisions (CF/88, art. 93, IX) and
the principle of ample defense. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the STJ have consistently held that such an omission leads to the nullity of the decision, requiring proper reasoning and analysis of all relevant points. This ensures that the defendant's arguments are genuinely considered and allows for proper appellate review.
In Common Law systems (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia), while not always a direct "nullity" in the same explicit sense as in Brazil, the failure to address arguments falls under broader grounds for judicial review, such as "illegality" or "procedural impropriety." In English law, for example, judicial review ensures that decision-makers "correctly understand the law... and give effect to it" (illegality) and act fairly (procedural impropriety). A decision-maker who exceeds their power (ultra vires) or misinterprets a legal term may have their decision quashed. The right to a fair trial, internationally guaranteed, includes the right to be heard by a competent and impartial tribunal, and for the accused to understand the verdict, which implies a reasoned decision. The requirement to analyze all defense arguments goes beyond mere procedural adherence; it touches on the substantive fairness of the judgment. A decision that does not engage with the arguments presented (even if implicitly rejected ) makes the process opaque and undermines the defendant's ability to understand the judicial reasoning and to effectively appeal. This directly affects the "right to a fair trial" and the principles of "proper motivation and reasoning." In Common Law, this aligns with grounds such as "procedural impropriety" or "illegality" in judicial review , where the focus is on the legality and fairness of the process by which decisions are made. The implication is that a truly fair process requires not only the opportunity to present arguments but also a demonstrable consideration of those arguments by the decision-maker, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, thereby reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary.
Lack of Judicial Impartiality
Lack of judicial impartiality is a serious ground for nullity. Recent STJ decisions indicate that "the absence of impartiality can be inferred from the exaggerated and biased behavior of a member of the Judiciary during the instruction phase, and can even lead to the recognition of suspicion." This extends beyond overt bias, encompassing subtle behaviors that compromise the perception of justice. The prolonged use of a cell phone by a juror during deliberations, for example, was considered capable of compromising impartiality and leading to nullity. In Common Law systems (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia), the test for judicial disqualification is "reasonable apprehension of bias," which is highly fact- and context-specific. While this provides flexibility, it also creates uncertainty. Some jurisdictions, such as the U.S., Germany, and Quebec, have codified rules to provide greater clarity on situations that may raise impartiality concerns. The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental feature of Common Law, aims to ensure consistency and predictability, indirectly supporting impartiality by reducing arbitrary decisions. Judicial misconduct, including failure to properly disqualify oneself for conflicts of interest, is a common complaint that diminishes public trust.
The shift in judicial scrutiny, from overt and demonstrable bias to a "reasonable apprehension of bias" or "exaggerated and biased behavior" , reflects a deeper understanding of how judicial impartiality, and consequently public trust, can be subtly eroded. The example of a juror's cell phone use illustrates that even seemingly minor behaviors can compromise the perception of justice, leading to nullity. This is crucial because "the judiciary cannot exist without the trust and faith of the people." When impartiality is compromised, it directly violates the "right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal" , which is a fundamental human right. The implication is that maintaining judicial legitimacy requires not only actual impartiality but also the meticulous cultivation of its appearance, as public perception is paramount to the system's credibility and its ability to uphold the Rule of Law.
Lack of Judicial Integrity
Although "lack of integrity" as a specific type of nullity is not explicitly detailed in the documents, it underpins many other nullities. Corruption within the judiciary, particularly at state and local levels, is reported as a factor impeding fair trials. Disciplinary actions against judges by the CNJ for various infractions, including "negligence" or "incorrect procedure," indirectly address integrity issues. The concept of "absolute nullity" for a "judgment rendered by a bribed judge" directly links lack of integrity to nullity.
In Common Law systems (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia), judicial integrity is a core value, fundamental to the Rule of Law. Misconduct, such as violations of criminal law, sexual misconduct, or using judicial position for private interest, directly questions judicial integrity. Many judicial codes of conduct, such as the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, urge judges to "preserve the integrity of the judiciary and avoid even the appearance of impropriety." While judicial decisions are generally subject to review, "incidents where people are jailed without due process, judges inventing improper remedies for cases, or a breakdown in the Rule of Law can rise to the level of judicial misconduct." Jurisdictions like Canada and England and Wales are noted for generally trustworthy judiciaries, where misconduct is less widespread.
The documents consistently highlight judicial integrity as the "bedrock of democracy and the Rule of Law." This positions integrity not merely as a desirable characteristic but as the fundamental prerequisite for any procedural rule or safeguard to be effective. If integrity is compromised (e.g., by corruption or "bribed" judges ), then even perfectly crafted procedural rules become meaningless, as the very decision-making process is tainted. This creates a causal chain: lack of integrity -> breakdown of due process -> procedural nullities -> erosion of public trust -> subversion of the Rule of Law. The implication is that while addressing specific nullities is important, true systemic reform must prioritize and continuously reinforce judicial integrity, as it is the ultimate guarantee of fair trials and the legitimacy of the justice system.
Use of Illicit Evidence
In Brazil, evidence obtained in violation of constitutional or legal norms is considered illicit and generally inadmissible (CPC, art. 157). The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine dictates that not only the illicitly obtained evidence, but also all subsequent evidence derived from it, must be disregarded. However, the STJ has recognized exceptions such as "inevitable discovery" and "independent source," where evidence may be admitted if it would have been inevitably found by lawful means, or if it was obtained independently by legal means. The STJ requires a "proven causal link" between the abusive conduct and the evidence for nullity to occur. In Common Law systems (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia), the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence varies. The U.S. applies the "exclusionary rule," which prevents evidence collected in violation of constitutional rights (e.g., Fourth and Fifth Amendments) from being used in court. This rule also applies to the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Exceptions exist, such as the
"inevitable discovery doctrine," the "good-faith exception," and the "independent source doctrine." In contrast, England has traditionally adopted an "inclusionary approach," admitting relevant evidence regardless of how it was obtained, although Canada and Australia have adopted more flexible or modified exclusionary rules.
The debate surrounding illicit evidence highlights a fundamental tension in justice systems: the pursuit of truth (convicting criminals) versus the protection of individual rights (due process, privacy). The "exclusionary rule" (U.S., Brazil) and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine prioritize the protection of rights, aiming to deter illegal state conduct. However, the development of exceptions such as "inevitable discovery" and "independent source" demonstrates a pragmatic attempt to prevent criminals from escaping justice due to technicalities, provided the evidence's link to the illegality is sufficiently attenuated or an independent legal path exists. This evolution signifies a continuous judicial effort to balance these competing values. The implication is that while fundamental rights must be upheld, the justice system also seeks to ensure that procedural errors do not inadvertently become shields for guilt, leading to nuanced and complex jurisprudence in this area.
Table 1: Comparison of Essential Procedural Nullities (Brazil vs.
Common Law)
Type of Nullity Brazilian Approach Common Law Approach (US,
UK, Canada, Australia)
Lack of Summons/Service of
Process Absolute nullity, violates due
process. Curable by spontaneous appearance, if no prejudice. Jurisdictional prerequisite.
Failure can void the process.
Governed by Rule 4 (US) and Hague Convention for international service. Emphasis on reasonable notice.
Lack of Notification/Notice Nullity due to denial of defense and surprise judgment. Requires prior notification and legal deadline (5 days) for sessions (in-person/virtual). Lack of notice can lead to nullity, especially if it prevents oral arguments. "Nullity of notice" in employment law (Canada).
Failure to Address Defense
Arguments Nullity due to violation of duty to provide reasoning and ample defense. Requires analysis of all relevant arguments. Ground for judicial review ("illegality", "procedural impropriety"). Decisions must be reasoned to allow understanding and appeal.
Lack of Judicial Impartiality Nullity due to biased behavior or suspicion. Subtle behaviors that compromise the perception of justice can lead to nullity. "Reasonable apprehension of bias" test. Some jurisdictions codify disqualification rules. Misconduct affecting impartiality diminishes public trust.
Lack of Judicial Integrity Underpins various nullities (e.g., judgment by a "bribed" judge). Judicial corruption impedes fair trials. Subject to Core value of the Rule of Law. Misconduct (criminal, improper use of position) questions integrity. Codes of conduct aim
Type of Nullity Brazilian Approach Common Law Approach (US,
UK, Canada, Australia)
CNJ disciplinary actions. to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Use of Illicit Evidence Illicit evidence and its derivatives ("fruit of the poisonous tree") are inadmissible. Exceptions: inevitable discovery, independent source, proven causal link. Varies by jurisdiction. US: "Exclusionary rule" and "fruit of the poisonous tree". UK: More inclusive approach.
Canada/Australia:
Flexible/modified rules. Exceptions: inevitable discovery, good faith, independent source.
IV. Evaluation under Fundamental Principles
Rule of Law and Human Rights
Due process of law is a fundamental principle that ensures the state applies all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case, respecting all legal rights owed to a person. It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary governmental actions. Both procedural due process (fair hearings, right to counsel, notification) and substantive due process are recognized. The right to challenge detention (habeas corpus) is a vital part of due process.
The right to a fair trial is an internationally recognized human right, enshrined in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 10), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Arts. 14, 16), the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 6), and the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 3, 8, 9, 10). It includes the right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, a public hearing, timely resolution, right to counsel, and interpretation. Procedural nullities directly undermine these fair trial guarantees, particularly those related to notification, opportunity to be heard, and impartial judgment.
Access to justice is a vital human right, recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 8, 10) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 2). It implies the right to an effective remedy, a fair and public hearing, and the ability to have one's rights determined by competent courts. Obstruction of access to justice can arise from lack of legal assistance, physical barriers, lack of accessible information, and systemic biases. Procedural nullities, by invalidating proceedings or denying rights to parties, directly impede effective access to justice.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have extensive jurisprudence on violations of due process and the right to a fair trial. The IACHR emphasizes the state's duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish human rights violations, and victims' right to participate in proceedings. The ECtHR has addressed issues such as the failure to effectively investigate domestic violence cases, leading to violations of the rights to be free from inhuman treatment and to respect for private life. These cases highlight how procedural failures at the domestic level can escalate to international human rights violations.
This section elevates procedural nullities from mere legal technicalities to indicators of deeper systemic failures in upholding human rights and the Rule of Law. When a system allows the proliferation of lack of summons, failure to analyze defense, or judicial impartiality, it is not merely violating procedural rules; it is directly infringing upon fundamental rights such as due process , the right to a fair trial , and access to justice. The jurisprudence of the IACHR and ECtHR demonstrates that domestic procedural failures can lead to international human rights violations, imposing state responsibility. The implication is that addressing procedural nullities is not just about correcting errors in individual cases but is a critical component of a state's international human rights obligations. This perspective transforms procedural reform into a human rights imperative, highlighting the interconnectedness of domestic legal practice and international human rights standards.
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct identify six core values: Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence. They serve as a universal statement of judicial ethics, widely adopted or used as a model by many judiciaries worldwide.
Independence is a prerequisite for the Rule of Law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. Judges must exercise their function free from external influences. Impartiality is essential for the proper discharge of the judicial office, applying both to the decision itself and to the process by which the decision is made. Judges must perform their duties without favor, bias, or prejudice, and ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances public confidence in their impartiality and that of the judiciary. This includes minimizing occasions for disqualification. Integrity is the "bedrock of democracy and the Rule of Law." Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Competence and Diligence require judges to perform their duties with competence and diligence, ensuring reasonable duration of proceedings.
Procedural nullities, particularly those arising from lack of impartiality, integrity, or diligence (e.g., failure to meet deadlines ), represent direct violations of these principles. The principles emphasize accountability and the need for internal mechanisms to regulate judicial conduct. The Bangalore Principles are not mere aspirational guidelines; they represent a proactive framework for preventing procedural nullities by fostering an ethical judicial culture. Values such as impartiality and integrity directly address the root causes of nullities related to bias and misconduct. Competence and diligence are directly related to preventing delays and ensuring proper procedural adherence, which can avoid nullities stemming from lack of notification or failure to analyze arguments. The emphasis on maintaining public confidence and judicial accountability suggests that ethical conduct is a preventive measure against the erosion of trust caused by procedural errors. The implication is that a strong ethical framework, actively promoted and enforced, can significantly reduce the incidence of procedural nullities, thereby strengthening the Rule of Law and public confidence in the judiciary.
V. Impacts of Procedural Nullities on the Justice System
Prejudice to Parties and Litigants
In Brazil, the principle of "pas de nullité sans grief" (no nullity without prejudice) is central, meaning that no act will be declared null if it did not cause prejudice to the parties. However, the very concept of "prejudice" is a source of legal uncertainty, leading to divergent decisions and "legal insecurity." When prejudice is recognized, as in the STJ case , it means that parties were deprived of fundamental rights such as ample defense and the opportunity to influence the outcome. This can lead to unjust results, prolonged litigation, and increased costs.
In Common Law systems, procedural nullities can significantly impact litigants, compromising their ability to present crucial evidence, preventing them from "telling their story," and undermining their case. Missed deadlines, improper filings, or failure to disclose evidence can lead to the exclusion of crucial information, resulting in unfavorable outcomes. The concept of "excusable neglect" for delays (U.S.) highlights the tension between procedural rigidity and ensuring that meritorious cases are heard, but its inconsistent interpretation can lead to the dismissal of valid claims.
The documents consistently demonstrate that procedural nullities are not isolated technical flaws; they have a profound "cascading effect" on the substantive justice delivered to litigants. In Brazil, the ambiguity surrounding "prejudice" means that the very mechanism designed to prevent unjust nullities can introduce uncertainty and lead to "casuistic decisions," undermining legal certainty and fundamental rights. In Common Law, procedural errors can directly lead to the exclusion of crucial evidence, effectively preventing a party from "telling their story" and resulting in an "unfavorable outcome." This illustrates a direct causal link: procedural errors can obstruct the fair presentation of facts and arguments, thereby directly impacting the fairness and accuracy of the final judgment. The implication is that robust procedural safeguards are essential not only for formal compliance but as a prerequisite for achieving substantive justice and preventing the arbitrary denial of rights.
Damage to the Credibility of Justice
In Brazil, when procedural nullities occur, especially those resulting from serious misconduct or systemic failures, they erode public confidence in the judicial system. Reports of "corruption within the judiciary" that impede fair trials directly contribute to this loss of credibility. The perception of arbitrary or inconsistent decisions, as suggested by the "legal insecurity" surrounding prejudice , further harms public trust.
In Common Law systems, judicial errors, including procedural ones, can "undermine public confidence in the judicial system," highlighting the importance of a "fair and accurate criminal justice system." While some Common Law judiciaries (e.g., Canada, England and Wales) are generally trustworthy, others face challenges. Public perception of the judiciary is a key factor in the design of disciplinary systems, as they aim to maintain public confidence. Inconsistent application of procedural rules or dismissal of meritorious cases due to technicalities can foster a perception of injustice.
The documents reveal a critical feedback loop: procedural errors and nullities directly contribute to a decline in the "credibility of Justice." This erosion of public trust makes the judiciary less effective in its societal role, as its authority and legitimacy derive from public confidence. Conversely, a judiciary perceived as high-quality and trustworthy is likely to have fewer instances of serious procedural misconduct or a more effective system for addressing them. The implication is that maintaining procedural integrity is not merely an internal administrative matter; it is a public relations and democratic imperative. A justice system that consistently fails to uphold its own procedural rules, or appears to do so arbitrarily, risks losing the very societal consent upon which its power is based, creating a vicious cycle of distrust and dysfunction.
Table 2: Impacts of Procedural Nullities (Prejudice and Credibility)
Impact Category Impact Description Examples from
Brazilian Context Examples from
Common Law Context
Direct Prejudice to
Parties Denial of fundamental rights, such as ample defense and due process. Loss of opportunity for oral arguments or submission of memorials. Unjust outcomes due to lack of notification. Exclusion of crucial evidence, preventing a party from "telling their story." Dismissal of
meritorious cases due to technicalities.
Procedural Delay Prolongation of the process duration due to the need to repeat acts or annulment. Return of records for new judgment. Delays in case resolution. Prolonged litigation and additional costs resulting from procedural defects.
Additional Costs Increased expenses for parties and the judicial system. Need to redo procedural acts, generating new expenses. Costs of appeals and new hearings.
Legal Uncertainty Lack of predictability in judicial decisions and inconsistent application of norms. Divergence in the interpretation of
"prejudice" for nullities, leading to casuistic decisions. Inconsistency in the interpretation of "excusable neglect."
Erosion of Public
Trust Decrease in society's faith in justice and the impartiality of the judiciary. Reports of judicial corruption. Perception of arbitrariness and inconsistency. Judicial errors undermine trust. Less trustworthy judiciaries face more misconduct issues.
Violation of
Fundamental Rights Direct infringement of internationally recognized human rights. Violation of due process, right to fair trial, and access to justice. Domestic procedural failures can lead to convictions in international human rights courts.
VI. Non-Compliance with Duties of the Judiciary and Judicial Staff: Standards and Recurrence
Duties of the Judiciary in Brazil (LOMAN, CNJ)
Magistrates in Brazil are bound by specific duties outlined in the National Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOMAN) and resolutions of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), such as the National Code of Judicial Ethics (Res. CNJ 60/2008) and Res. CNJ 135/2011.
Key duties include: not exceeding legal deadlines for decisions/orders (ensuring "reasonable duration of the process"), treating parties and other legal professionals with civility, and determining necessary measures for procedural acts to occur within legal deadlines.
Violation of these duties can lead to disciplinary sanctions, ranging from warning and censure to compulsory removal, availability, or compulsory retirement. Negligence and incorrect procedures are specific grounds for disciplinary actions. The CNJ actively opens disciplinary proceedings against judges for alleged misconduct, as seen in the Lava Jato case , demonstrating an institutional mechanism for accountability.
Duties of Judicial Staff in Brazil
Judicial staff play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the justice system. Their duties include the execution of judicial decisions (e.g., issuing release warrants, enforcing seizures), maintaining physical and electronic case files, and ensuring the integrity and accessibility of documents.
They are subject to a disciplinary regime, with infractions that can compromise the dignity and decorum of public office, harm the efficiency of services, or cause prejudice to the administration. Penalties range from verbal reprimand to dismissal. Failures in these duties (e.g., improper filing, missed deadlines for notifications, inadequate authentication of evidence) can directly lead to procedural nullities and hinder litigants from "telling their story."
Identification of Patterns and Recurrence of Problems
Reports indicate "corruption within the judiciary" at local and state levels in Brazil as a factor impeding fair trials. While the overall number of deaths by police has decreased, impunity for police operations remains a persistent pattern.
The Brazilian judiciary faces challenges such as an increasing number of demands, insufficient judges and staff, and inadequate procedural legislation, leading to slowness and a decline in service quality. There is a recognized need for better management methods and a shift from a conservative and hierarchical culture.
Trust in juries in the U.S. is higher than in Australia, particularly regarding ability, impartiality, fairness, and respect. Judiciaries in Canada, England, and Wales are generally trustworthy, with judicial misconduct being less widespread compared to some other jurisdictions. This suggests varying levels of systemic integrity and effectiveness in preventing and addressing misconduct that could lead to nullities.
Brazil has mechanisms to punish abuse of authority and a state duty to investigate and punish human rights violations, with victims having the right to participate. However, the time required for charges to be formalized and cases to be closed remains a concern.
This section synthesizes how institutional factors (insufficient personnel, inadequate legislation
), organizational culture (conservatism, strong hierarchy ), and the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms (disciplinary proceedings, but also slow investigations ) collectively contribute to the patterns and recurrence of procedural nullities. The presence of "corruption within the judiciary" and persistent impunity suggest a deeper systemic vulnerability that allows nullities related to impartiality and integrity to persist. Comparative data on judicial trust further illustrates this: jurisdictions with higher trust likely have more robust internal controls and a culture that prioritizes procedural adherence and ethical conduct, thereby reducing the incidence of nullities and their negative impacts. The implication is that effectively addressing procedural nullities requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond individual discipline to encompass systemic reforms in judicial administration, resource allocation, and a fundamental shift in institutional culture towards greater transparency, efficiency, and accountability. It is about building a resilient and trustworthy justice system from the ground up, where procedural integrity is a shared value.
Table 3: Duties and Responsibilities in the Brazilian Judiciary and Disciplinary Implications
Actor Main Duties Relevant Legal
Basis Examples of
Procedural
Failures Linked to
Duty Disciplinary
Implications/Penalt ies
Magistrate Not to exceed deadlines, ensure reasonable duration of proceedings. Treat parties and public prosecutors with
civility. Determine necessary measures for procedural acts within legal deadlines. Exercise function independently, free from influences. Act with impartiality and integrity. LOMAN (Art. 35, I, VIII), CNJ Resolution No.
60/2008 (Code of Ethics), CNJ Resolution No.
135/2011,
Bangalore
Principles.
Virtual judgment without adequate notification. Failure to analyze defense arguments. Biased behavior or cell phone use during session. Corruption or negligence. Warning, censure, compulsory
removal,
availability,
compulsory retirement, dismissal (according to severity and recidivism).
Judicial Staff Execute judicial decisions (warrants, seizures). Maintain
files
(physical/electroni c) and ensure document integrity. Ensure document accessibility. Federal
Constitution,
Public Servant
Statute
(Decree-Law
220/75),
Normative
Consolidation of the General
Judiciary's
Corregedoria for Judicial Services, Specific Laws. Improper filing.
Missed deadlines for notifications. Failure to authenticate evidence.
Summons errors. Verbal/written reprimand, suspension, removal from trusted position, simple/qualified dismissal, revocation of availability.
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations
Synthesis of Key Findings and Identified Patterns
The analysis of procedural nullities reveals that they are not mere formal flaws, but rather manifestations of deeper deficiencies that affect the essence of the justice system. The STJ case (REsp No. 2.136.836/SP) serves as a paradigmatic example of the inherent tension between the pursuit of judicial efficiency and the non-negotiable safeguarding of fundamental rights to due process, contradictory, and ample defense. The court's decision, by annulling a virtual judgment due to lack of notification, reaffirmed that expediency cannot justify the suppression of essential guarantees.
The discussion about the "prejudice" requirement in Brazilian law, although fundamental to avoid excessive formalism, reveals an ambiguity that generates legal uncertainty and inconsistent decisions. This lack of uniformity can, paradoxically, undermine legal certainty and trust in the application of the law.
The comparative perspective demonstrates that, while Brazil, under Civil Law, tends towards a more pragmatic and curative approach to procedural defects (such as summons), Common Law systems often maintain a stricter formalism to ensure jurisdiction from the outset. However, both systems converge on the importance of analyzing defense arguments, judicial impartiality, and integrity, recognizing that failure in these aspects compromises substantive justice and the legitimacy of the process. The issue of illicit evidence also illustrates a continuous effort to balance the pursuit of truth with the protection of individual rights, with different approaches in each system.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emerge as an ethical bulwark, underlining that judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity are pillars for the prevention of nullities and for maintaining public trust. The non-compliance with the duties of the judiciary and judicial staff in Brazil, often linked to systemic issues such as insufficient resources, organizational culture, and the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms, directly contributes to the recurrence of these problems. Corruption and impunity, as pointed out in reports, represent systemic vulnerabilities that exacerbate the incidence of nullities related to integrity and impartiality.
In summary, procedural nullities are symptoms of a system that, despite advances, still struggles to balance efficiency with the full guarantee of fundamental rights and the maintenance of credibility. They represent not only technical failures but manifestations of deficits in human rights and judicial governance.
Recommendations for Strengthening Integrity, Efficiency, and Access to Justice
Based on the analysis presented, the following recommendations are proposed to strengthen the justice system, mitigate the occurrence of procedural nullities, and enhance public trust:
1. Clarity and Uniformity in the Application of "Prejudice":
○ Develop and disseminate clear and binding guidelines on the interpretation and application of the "pas de nullité sans grief" (no nullity without prejudice) principle. This should include specifying situations where prejudice is presumed (e.g., lack of notification for essential acts) and criteria for assessing concrete prejudice, in order to reduce legal uncertainty and promote consistency in decisions.
2. Technological Integration with Robust Safeguards:
○ Ensure that the implementation and expansion of judicial technologies, such as virtual judgment sessions, are accompanied by strict procedural safeguards. This includes guaranteeing adequate notification periods, effective mechanisms for objecting to virtual judgment, and full opportunity for the submission of memorials and oral arguments, as appropriate, to prevent denial of defense.
3. Strengthening Judicial Ethics and Accountability:
○ Intensify continuous training programs for magistrates and judicial staff, with a deep
focus on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, especially impartiality, integrity, competence, and diligence.
○ Improve existing disciplinary mechanisms, making them more transparent, agile, and effective in investigating and sanctioning conduct that compromises judicial integrity and efficiency. This includes reviewing deadlines for the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and ensuring adequate publicity of decisions, respecting due process.
4. Optimization of Management and Resource Allocation:
○ Promote reforms in judicial administration to address systemic challenges, such as case overload and insufficient personnel. This may involve adopting modern management methods, strategic allocation of human and technological resources, and reviewing procedural legislation to simplify procedures without compromising fundamental guarantees.
5. Fostering a Culture of Procedural Compliance:
○ Encourage an institutional culture within the judiciary that values meticulous adherence to procedures as a fundamental pillar of justice delivery. This implies recognizing that procedural integrity is not a mere formality, but an essential component for the legitimacy of decisions and for maintaining public trust.
6. Promotion of Comparative Study and Best Practices:
○ Continue and deepen comparative studies between Civil Law and Common Law systems to identify and adapt best practices in managing nullities, applying judicial disqualification rules, and regulating illicit evidence. The exchange of experiences can enrich the debate and improve legal solutions in both contexts.
By implementing these recommendations, the justice system can not only reduce the incidence of procedural nullities but also strengthen its integrity, efficiency, and, crucially, society's trust in its ability to deliver justice equitably and transparently.
Referências citadas
1. STJ decide que ausência de intimação de advogado constituído enseja anulação - OABMS, https://oabms.org.br/stj-decide-que-ausencia-de-intimacao-de-advogado-constituido-enseja-anu lacao/ 2. Jurisprudência - jurisprudencia - TJPR,
https://portal.tjpr.jus.br/jurisprudencia/j/4100000022433871/Ac%C3%83%C2%B3rd%C3%83% C2%A3o-0054510-73.2022.8.16.0000;jsessionid=47ac2b8cd9a4a82c90927a08fc16 3. Cabe mandado de segurança contra decisão que não analisa nulidade por falta de intimação de terceiro - STJ,
https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/22112021-Cabe-mandado-deseguranca-contra-decisao-que-nao-analisa-nulidade-por-falta-de-intimacao-de-terceiro-.aspx 4. Capítulo VII – Das Nulidades Processuais | Portal Médico - Conselho Federal de Medicina., https://portal.cfm.org.br/etica-medica/codigo-de-processo-etico-profissional-atual/capitulo-vii-das -nulidades-processuais/ 5. O prejuízo na teoria das nulidades processuais penais e sua análise jurisprudencial... - Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP,
https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2137/tde-08082016-143245/pt-br.php 6. as nulidades processuais à luz do novo código de processo civil, https://revista.uemg.br/gtic-direitoecidadania/article/download/3619/2044/11662 7. I Doutrina: Nulidades no Código de Processo Civil (AS) - MPSP,
https://www.mpsp.mp.br/portal/page/portal/documentacao_e_divulgacao/doc_biblioteca/bibli_se rvicos_produtos/bibli_boletim/bibli_bol_2006/RDC_01_136.pdf 8. Nulidade Da Citacao | Jurisprudência Selecionada - LEGJUR.COM,
https://www.legjur.com/jurisprudencia/busca?q=nulidade-da-citacao&op=com 9. International Litigation: Serving Process outside the US - Proskauer,
https://www.proskauer.com/insights/download-pdf/1770 10. Transatlantic litigation: service of US proceedings in the UK under the Hague Convention,
https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2018/transatlantic-litigation-serv ice-of-us-proceedings-in-the-uk-under-the-hague-convention 11. Reasonable Notice | Practical Law - Thomson Reuters,
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-032-7266?originationContext=document&transitio nType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&ppcid=ca039280515a4610b205056f8bd6406 9 12. Increasing Common Law Notice Awards In Recent Years - McCarthy Tétrault LLP, https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/canadian-employer-advisor/increasing-common-law-n otice-awards-in-recent-years 13. STF: ausência de enfrentamento das teses defensivas acarreta nulidade,
https://www.urbanovitalino.com.br/stf-ausencia-de-enfrentamento-das-teses-defensivas-acarret a-nulidade/ 14. Superior Tribunal de Justiça - MPMG,
https://www.mpmg.mp.br/data/files/AD/66/FB/3B/6A44A7109CEB34A7760849A8/REsp%201.74 2.440%20-%20NULIDADE%20-%20Decis_o%20condenat_ria%20fundamentada%20-%20Mani festa__o%20sobre%20todos%20os%20pontos%20suscitados%20-%20Aus_ncia%20da%20nul
idade%20-%20Les_o%20.pdf 15. Judicial review in English law - Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law 16. Quickguide - Judicial Review - Ashurst, https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/quickguide-judicial-review/ 17. Right to a fair trial - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial 18. The right to a fair trial, https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/ 19. Judicial Error: Understanding the Process and Legal Remedies,
https://www.studiolegalebianucci.it/en/what-happens-when-a-judge-makes-a-mistake-in-a-ruling
20. PROTAGONISMO JUDICIAL + NULIDADE + SUSPEIÇÃO + STJ - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWbG6bEQ4KA 21. Buscador de Jurisprudência do
Trilhante,
https://informativos.trilhante.com.br/buscador?menu%5Binstitution%5D=STJ&hierarchicalMenu %5Bcategories.lvl0%5D%5B0%5D=Processo%20Penal&hierarchicalMenu%5Bcategories.lvl0%
5D%5B1%5D=Nulidades 22. From Principles to Rules: The Case for Statutory Rules Governing Aspects of Judicial Disqualification,
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3040&context=ohlj 23. A Global Community of Courts? Modelling the Use of Persuasive Authority as a Complex Network
- Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2021.665719/full
24. Judicial Misconduct and Public Confidence in the Rule of Law - Unodc,
https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/08/judicial-misconduct-and-public-confide nce-in-the-rule-of-law.html 25. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct of 2002, reproduced in Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Annex., https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/bangalore_principles2003.html 26. THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 2002 - International Commission of Jurists, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Bangalore-Principles-of-Judicial-Conduct-instru ment-2002-eng.pdf 27. 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Brazil - State Department,
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/brazil/ 28. A
RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DO MAGISTRADO E O DISCIPLINAMENTO DO CONSELHO
NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA - seer.ufal.br, https://www.seer.ufal.br/index.php/rmdufal/article/download/330/pdf_3/3795 29. CNJ abre processo disciplinar contra juízes da Lava Jato - Agência Brasil - EBC,
https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/justica/noticia/2024-06/cnj-abre-processo-disciplinar-contra-juiz es-da-lava-jato 30. Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct - UNODC, https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/commentary_on_the_bangalore_pri nciples_of_judicial_conduct/bangalore_principles_english.pdf 31. Commentary on The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct - UNODC,
https://www.unodc.org/documents/nigeria/publications/Otherpublications/Commentry_on_the_B angalore_principles_of_Judicial_Conduct.pdf 32. A Global Comparison of Judicial Discipline Mechanisms - Judicature - Duke University,
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/a-global-comparison-of-judicial-discipline/ 33. Critérios para Anular Provas no Processo Penal - Legale Educacional,
https://legale.com.br/blog/criterios-para-anular-provas-no-processo-penal/ 34. Fonte independente e descoberta inevitável, segundo o STJ., https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/2023/14052023-Os-frutos-daarvore-envenenada--a-descoberta-inevitavel-e-a-fonte-independente-em-julgados-do-STJ.aspx 35. Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule 36.
Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence - A Comparative Analysis of the Laws of England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand | Office of Justice Programs, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/admissibility-illegally-obtained-evidence-compa rative-analysis-laws 37. Due process - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process 38. Why due process matters for every American, including non-citizens | The IRC, https://www.rescue.org/article/due-process-rights-america 39. Access To Justice - Latham & Watkins LLP, https://www.lw.com/en/global-pro-bono-survey/access-to-justice 40. International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities - Welcome to the United Nations,
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2020/10/Access-t o-Justice-EN.pdf 41. Violations | IACHR - Loyola Law School, https://iachr.lls.edu/violations 42. the doctrine of the inter-american court of human rights regarding states' duty to punish human, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/R22053.pdf 43. The European Court of Human Rights and Domestic Violence: Valiuliene v Lithuania - Queen's University Belfast,
https://pure.qub.ac.uk/files/17206480/european_court.pdf 44. ECHR Case Law Monitoring 2024 - Victim Support Europe, https://victim-support.eu/news/echr-case-law-monitoring-2024/ 45.
MEASURES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES
OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, https://www.yargitay.gov.tr/documents/bangaloreetigi.pdf 46. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct,
https://www.judicialintegritygroup.org/the-bangalore-principles 47. Nulidade processual – necessidade de comprovação de prejuízo - TJDFT,
https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprudencia-em-temas/novo-codigo-de-proces so-civil/nulidade-processual-necessidade-da-existencia-de-prejuizo 48. The Consequences of Failing to Follow Proper Procedure: Protecting Your Right to Tell Your Story,
https://hjlawfirm.com/the-consequences-of-failing-to-follow-proper-procedure-protecting-your-rig
ht-to-tell-your-story/ 49. Deadlines in Civil Litigation: Toward a More Equitable Framework for Granting Extensions - YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW,
https://yalelawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/YLPR/6_mooney_deadlines_in_civil_litigation.pdf
50. Nulidade: entenda o que é e quais os tipos - Aurum,
https://www.aurum.com.br/blog/nulidade/ 51. Lei Orgânica da Magistratura Nacional, https://rumoamagistratura.com/plataforma/uploads/files/2025/01/recado-loman-1736600405.pdf
52. Informativo de JURISPRUDÊNCIA do CNJ,
https://atos.cnj.jus.br/files/original2151202023090464f65158a819a.pdf 53. O que é Serventia judicial e o que faz um Serventuário? - Legis Blog | Inteligência Jurídica,
https://blog.legishub.com.br/o-que-e-serventia-judicial-e-o-que-faz-o-serventuario/ 54. Infração disciplinar e penalidades - Servidor - Poder Judiciário de Santa Catarina, https://www.tjsc.jus.br/web/servidor/regime-disciplinar/infracao-disciplinar-e-penalidades 55.
L8112consol - Planalto, https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8112cons.htm 56. 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Brazil - State Department,
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/brazil/ 57. a prestação jurisdicional como serviço público: a observância do princípio da eficiência e sua relação com a razoável - Dialnet, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6136451.pdf 58. Trust in the jury system: a comparison of Australian and U.S. samples - PMC,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9176378/ 59. Câmara aprova “Lei Cancellier” para punir abusos de autoridades,
https://pt.org.br/camara-aprova-lei-cancellier-para-punir-abusos-de-autoridades/ 60. Punir como standard de direitos humanos - Rio de Janeiro - MPRJ,
https://www.mprj.mp.br/documents/20184/4637956/ValeriodeOliveira_%20AntonioSergio.pdf
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário