segunda-feira, 17 de agosto de 2026

STJ : THE DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO FULL AND TIMELY ACCESS TO EVIDENCE UNDER STATE CUSTODY, FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVIDENTIARY PHASE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AREsp 3.028.845/PR: the late presentation of evidence does not restore lost defense opportunities nor cure the violation of due process of law, the adversarial process, full defense, equality of arms, and the professional prerogatives of lawyers

BRAZILIAN SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (STJ): THE DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO FULL AND TIMELY ACCESS TO EVIDENCE UNDER STATE CUSTODY, FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVIDENTIARY PHASE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

AREsp 3.028.845/PR: the late presentation of evidence does not restore lost defense opportunities nor cure the violation of due process of law, the adversarial process, full defense, equality of arms, and the professional prerogatives of lawyers

MINDD Analysis with assistance of AI CHATGPT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 16, 2026, the Fifth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously decided AREsp 3.028.845/PR, Registry No. 2025/0322817-9, under the reporting opinion of Justice Ribeiro Dantas.

The Court partially granted the Special Appeal and declared null the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward because the defense had not obtained full and timely access to environmental recordings maintained under State custody during the procedural stages in which those recordings could have been effectively used.

The judgment was published in the DJEN/CNJ on June 23, 2026. [1]

The STJ formally established five propositions:

recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner;

unilateral prosecutorial selection of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense scrutiny of the evidentiary source;

disclosure after final arguments does not automatically restore adversarial proceedings when useful access was denied during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase;

violation of full and timely access compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and evidentiary reliability;

and, in that case, the defect required nullity from the response to the accusation onward, followed by renewal of the affected evidentiary acts. [1]

The judgment is especially important because the STJ expressly distinguished a formal opportunity to comment on evidence from an effective opportunity to use evidence at the proper procedural time.

Justice Ribeiro Dantas stated that the defense does not have merely the right to comment upon evidence after the evidentiary phase has ended; it has the right to know the evidence at an adequate time to guide its procedural conduct, select its theories, request measures, formulate questions, produce counterevidence, and evaluate the need for expert examination. [1]

Although AREsp 3.028.845/PR arose in a criminal case, due process of law, full defense, and adversarial proceedings are not constitutional guarantees restricted to Criminal Law. Article 5, LIV, of the Brazilian Constitution guarantees due process of law, while Article 5, LV, expressly guarantees adversarial proceedings and full defense to litigants “in judicial or administrative proceedings” and to defendants in general. [3]

The Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure reinforces this constitutional structure through parity of treatment, effective adversarial proceedings, prior hearing, and the prohibition against decisions based on grounds on which the parties had no opportunity to be heard. [5]

Federal Law No. 9,784/1999 expressly includes full defense and adversarial proceedings among the governing principles of federal administrative procedure. [8]

The same broader reach appears in international human-rights law :

Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights guarantees a hearing with due guarantees not only in the substantiation of a criminal accusation, but also for the determination of rights and obligations of a “civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” [13]

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, reviewing Inter-American Court jurisprudence, states expressly that due process cannot be construed as confined to judicial actions and that it must be guaranteed in State proceedings or actions capable of affecting individual rights and interests. [16]

This article therefore examines AREsp 3.028.845/PR at two distinct levels. First, it analyzes exactly what the STJ decided in the criminal case. Second, it places the constitutional principles implicated by that judgment within the broader Brazilian, Inter-American, European, and United States legal frameworks.

Comparative observations in this article are identified as comparative analysis and are not attributed to the STJ unless they appear in the STJ judgment itself.

ABSTRACT

This article examines the June 16, 2026 judgment of the Fifth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in AREsp 3.028.845/PR, Reporting Justice Ribeiro Dantas.

The decision concerns environmental recordings maintained under State custody that were disclosed only after the defense had submitted final arguments.

The STJ held that the defense is entitled to full, timely, and verifiable access to recorded evidence under State custody and that reopening a deadline for supplemental final arguments does not automatically restore procedural opportunities lost during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase.

The Court connected full and timely access to substantive adversarial proceedings, equality of arms, chain of custody, completeness of digital evidence, and the reliability of the evidentiary process.

This article also demonstrates, directly from Article 5, LIV and LV, of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution and other statutory and international sources, that due process of law, full defense, and adversarial proceedings are not guarantees limited to Criminal Law.

It further compares the Brazilian judgment with Inter-American human-rights standards, European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence concerning disclosure of evidence, and United States Supreme Court cases concerning prosecutorial disclosure.

The comparison does not equate these legal systems; it identifies converging procedural concerns while preserving the distinct legal sources and doctrinal structures of each jurisdiction.

Keywords: due process of law; full defense; adversarial proceedings; equality of arms; access to evidence; digital evidence; chain of custody; lawyers’ prerogatives; Brazilian Superior Court of Justice; STJ; AREsp 3.028.845/PR; human rights; fair trial.

1. Introduction

2. AREsp 3.028.845/PR: Case Identification and Procedural Context

3. The Five Holdings Formally Established by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice

4. Full, Timely, and Verifiable Access: What the STJ Actually Held

5. Why Late Disclosure Does Not Restore Lost Defense Opportunities

6. Digital Evidence, Completeness, and Chain of Custody

7. Due Process, Full Defense, and Adversarial Proceedings Under the 1988 Brazilian Constitution

8. Due Process, Full Defense, and Adversarial Proceedings Are Not Limited to Criminal Law

8.1. The Express Constitutional Text: Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

8.2. Civil Proceedings: Articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

8.3. Administrative Proceedings: Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999

8.4. The American Convention and Inter-American Administrative Due Process

9. Lawyers’ Professional Prerogatives and Access to Evidence

10. Brazilian Legal Commentary on AREsp 3.028.845/PR

10.1. Evinis Talon

10.2. Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante — Dizer o Direito

11. International Human-Rights Standards

11.1. American Convention on Human Rights

11.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

11.3. United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers

12. Inter-American Human-Rights Jurisprudence

13. European Court of Human Rights: Disclosure and Effective Defense

13.1. Matanović v. Croatia

13.2. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom

13.3. Natunen v. Finland

14. United States Supreme Court Comparative Analysis

14.1. Brady v. Maryland

14.2. Kyles v. Whitley

14.3. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

14.4. Wearry v. Cain

14.5. Why AREsp 3.028.845/PR Is Not Simply a “Brazilian Brady”

15. Source-Grounded Comparative Findings

16. Conclusion

Appendix I — Unofficial English Translation of the Official STJ Headnote and Five Holdings

Appendix II — Key Passages and FULL Opinion of the STJ in English

Appendix III — Official STJ Judgment Video and Complete Session Index

17. References

1. INTRODUCTION

The right of defense is not exhausted by the formal possibility of responding to evidence. The usefulness of evidence to a litigant depends upon when it becomes known, whether its source can be examined, whether it is complete, and whether procedural opportunities remain available for using it.

These questions were at the center of AREsp 3.028.845/PR. The Fifth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice examined environmental recordings that remained under State custody but were added to the proceedings only after final arguments had been submitted. The Court concluded that allowing the defense to supplement its final arguments did not automatically restore the opportunities that had already been lost. [1]

The importance of the judgment extends beyond the fact that recordings were disclosed late. The opinion addresses the relationship among access to evidence, procedural timing, defense strategy, counterevidence, witness examination, expert examination, digital chain of custody, evidentiary completeness, substantive adversarial proceedings, and equality of arms.

At the same time, precision is essential. AREsp 3.028.845/PR is a criminal case. The nullity declared by the STJ from the response to the accusation onward arose from the procedural history of that criminal prosecution. What is not limited to Criminal Law, however, are the constitutional guarantees of due process of law, adversarial proceedings, and full defense themselves. The Brazilian Constitution says so expressly. [3]

2. AREsp 3.028.845/PR: CASE IDENTIFICATION AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

The case is Agravo em Recurso Especial — AREsp No. 3,028,845/PR, Registry No. 2025/0322817-9, Reporting Justice Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice. It was adjudicated unanimously on June 16, 2026, electronically signed on June 18, 2026, and published in the DJEN/CNJ on June 23, 2026. [1]

The criminal action involved charges relating to passive corruption, active corruption, administrative advocacy, and criminal organization. The defense alleged nullity arising from the withholding, manipulation, disappearance, or late filing of environmental recordings delivered to Gaeco, together with violations of chain of custody, adversarial proceedings, full defense, and the commonality of evidence.

The relevant recordings had been stored in a Gaeco system. They were added to the electronic proceedings at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7 after final arguments had already been presented. A new period was then opened for defense supplementation. The defense argued that it had not had full and timely access to the evidentiary body and therefore could not adequately control its origin, provenance, storage, possible alteration, and reliability.

The official judgment hearing can be viewed in the STJ’s video of the Fifth Panel session of June 16, 2026. The case appears at 0:46:07 in the official session index. [2]

The public judgment should be retrieved through the official STJ Íntegra de Acórdãos search system. The search page permits retrieval by Class, Number, or Registry. For this case, use: Class: AREsp; Number: 3028845; Registry: 2025/0322817-9. [1]

3. THE FIVE HOLDINGS FORMALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE BRAZILIAN SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

The STJ itself set forth five propositions under the heading “Tese de julgamento.” The following is a direct English translation from the official Portuguese judgment:

1. Recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner.

2. Unilateral selection, by the prosecution, of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source.

3. The filing of environmental recordings after final arguments, even if before the judgment and with a period for a supplemental submission, does not automatically restore adversarial proceedings when the defense was deprived of useful access to the evidentiary body during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase.

4. Violation of full and timely access to digital or recorded evidence compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and the reliability of the evidentiary process.

5. Once the defect is recognized, the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward must be declared null, with renewal of the affected evidentiary acts. [1]

These propositions are not an interpretation created for this article. They are the five propositions expressly formulated by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice in the official judgment.

4. FULL, TIMELY, AND VERIFIABLE ACCESS: WHAT THE STJ ACTUALLY HELD

The first holding uses three separate requirements: integralidade, tempestividade e verificabilidade — fullness, timeliness, and verifiability.

The Court held that defense access is not limited to the evidence the prosecution selected for use in supporting the accusation. The defense also has an interest in material under State custody that may contextualize, contradict, or weaken the prosecution’s hypothesis. The prosecution’s assertion that particular recordings were not used to form the opinio delicti did not eliminate the defense’s interest in examining them.

Justice Ribeiro Dantas explained that if material existed in the database of a State investigative body and was subsequently located by the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself, its omission from the accusation did not make it irrelevant to the defense. The defense might have an equal or even greater interest in material not selected by the prosecution because that material could contain contextualizing, contradictory, or weakening elements.

The judgment therefore rejects a model in which prosecutorial evaluation of relevance becomes a substitute for defense examination of the source.

Importantly, the STJ did not state that the undisclosed or late-disclosed material necessarily favored the accused.

The opinion says the problem arises earlier: without complete and timely access, the defense was prevented from determining whether it did. The uncertainty generated by the way evidence was collected, preserved, and selected could not be resolved against the party that had no control over those activities.

5. WHY LATE DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RESTORE LOST DEFENSE OPPORTUNITIES

The court of origin had treated the reopening of the period for supplemental final arguments as sufficient to preserve adversarial proceedings and full defense. The STJ disagreed.

The Reporting Justice identified a fundamental distinction between permitting a later supplementation and making the evidence available when defense strategy is being defined. By the time the recordings were disclosed, the defense had already prepared its final submission without knowledge of them. A later measure could mitigate some consequences of delayed disclosure, but it did not necessarily restore all the possibilities that would have existed if the complete recordings had been examined earlier.

The STJ stated:

“The defense does not have only the right to comment upon the evidence after the evidentiary phase has ended. It has the right to know it at an adequate time in order to guide its procedural actions, select its theories, request investigative measures, formulate questions, produce counterevidence, and evaluate the need for expert examination.” [1]

The Court then identified the response to the accusation as the first moment in the criminal procedure in which technical defense is structured. At that stage, the accused can raise preliminary matters, identify evidence, formulate requests, and establish the defense line that will guide the evidentiary phase. When the defense does not know the full content of State-held recordings at that moment, the judgment says that the defense begins its work subject to an informational asymmetry incompatible with substantive adversarial proceedings.

The Court also identified specific opportunities affected during the evidentiary phase: the way witnesses could have been questioned, confrontation between testimony and recordings, questions about context and continuity, inquiries concerning the origin and storage of files, preservation of the media, the existence of additional excerpts, and the criteria by which material had been selected for inclusion in the record.

For that reason, the Court concluded that later supplementation of final arguments did not undo the prejudice. It permitted only a late reaction to evidence that should have informed the defense throughout the proceedings. According to the judgment, adversarial proceedings exercised only at the end become reactive and cannot restore the equality of arms affected from the beginning.

6. DIGITAL EVIDENCE, COMPLETENESS, AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Another major component of AREsp 3.028.845/PR concerns the epistemic reliability of digital evidence.

The STJ expressly held that chain of custody is not limited to establishing that a file has not been altered. The Court’s headnote states that digital chain of custody also requires preservation of integrality, traceability, authenticity, completeness, and reliability.

The opinion explains that a piece of evidence may show no indication of adulteration and nevertheless remain procedurally problematic if what reaches adversarial proceedings is only a fragment of a broader evidentiary body whose completeness has not been demonstrated.

The Court relied upon its own earlier digital-evidence precedents. In AgRg no RHC 184.003/SP, the Fifth Panel had dealt with inaccessible or corrupted digital files and the absence of the original source required for independent verification.

In RHC 218.358/PI, the Sixth Panel addressed the loss of original recordings and simulation material, which impaired the defense’s ability to examine the source used to prepare expert reports and to produce counterevidence.

Those precedents are expressly cited in AREsp 3.028.845/PR. [1]

The opinion states that factual accuracy in judicial decision-making depends substantially upon the quantity, completeness, and quality of evidence submitted for evaluation.

Fragmentation or incompleteness reduces the possibility of reliable reconstruction of events and increases the risk of judicial error.

The Court therefore treated completeness not as an empty formality but as a condition for defense control over the origin, content, and reliability of the material used against the accused.

Ultimately, the STJ ordered full availability not only of the environmental recordings, but also of the corresponding raw data and custody elements necessary to verify their origin, custody, completeness, authenticity, and reliability.

7. DUE PROCESS, FULL DEFENSE, AND ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE 1988 BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION

The constitutional foundations of procedural defense in Brazil appear directly in Article 5 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

Article 5, LIV provides, literally:

“No one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.” [3]

Article 5, LV provides:

“Litigants, in judicial or administrative proceedings, as well as defendants in general, are assured adversarial proceedings and full defense, with the means and remedies inherent thereto.” [3]

The constitutional text is decisive for the broader question examined in this article. Article 5, LV does not say “criminal defendants only.” It expressly identifies litigants in judicial proceedings, litigants in administrative proceedings, and defendants in general. [3]

Consequently, the constitutional guarantees of adversarial proceedings and full defense cannot be classified as guarantees belonging exclusively to Criminal Law.

8. DUE PROCESS, FULL DEFENSE, AND ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT LIMITED TO CRIMINAL LAW

8.1. The Express Constitutional Text: Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

This point must be separated from the specific criminal remedy imposed in AREsp 3.028.845/PR.

The STJ case determined that, in that criminal prosecution, the defect required nullity from the response to the accusation because the defense had been deprived of full and timely access during that procedural stage and throughout the evidentiary phase.

The broader constitutional rule comes directly from Article 5, LIV and LV. Due process of law is constitutionally guaranteed, and adversarial proceedings and full defense are expressly secured to litigants in judicial or administrative proceedings. [3]

Accordingly, the guarantees themselves are not criminal-law guarantees. They form part of the Brazilian constitutional structure governing the exercise of judicial and administrative authority.

This is not an extension created by analogy from AREsp 3.028.845/PR. It is stated in the constitutional text itself.

8.2. Civil Proceedings: Articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Brazilian civil procedure independently confirms the same constitutional structure.

Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure guarantees parity of treatment to the parties in relation to procedural rights and powers, means of defense, burdens, duties, and sanctions, and expressly charges the judge with ensuring the effective adversarial process. [5]

Article 9 establishes the general rule that no decision shall be rendered against a party without that party first being heard, subject to the exceptions expressly established by law. [5]

Article 10 prohibits the judge, at any level of jurisdiction, from deciding on a ground concerning which the parties were not given an opportunity to express themselves, even when the matter is one that the court may consider ex officio. [5]

These are express provisions of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, effective adversarial participation, parity of treatment, prior hearing, and the opportunity to address the basis of judicial decision-making are not institutions confined to criminal procedure.

8.3. Administrative Proceedings: Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999

Federal administrative procedure provides another direct statutory confirmation.

Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999 states that the Public Administration shall obey, among other principles, legality, purpose, reasoning, reasonableness, proportionality, morality, full defense, adversarial proceedings, legal certainty, public interest, and efficiency. [8]

The law therefore expressly places full defense and adversarial proceedings among the principles governing federal administrative procedure.

The constitutional statement in Article 5, LV and the statutory statement in Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999 are mutually consistent: administrative proceedings are not outside the guarantees of defense and adversarial participation.

8.4. The American Convention and Inter-American Administrative Due Process

The American Convention on Human Rights provides an additional and express international foundation.

Article 8(1) guarantees every person a hearing with due guarantees and within a reasonable time by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law, both in the substantiation of criminal accusations and for the determination of rights and obligations of a “civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” [13]

The Inter-American Commission’s report Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights discusses the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence on administrative due process and states that due process cannot be construed as limited to judicial actions. It explains that due process must be respected where State bodies act through proceedings capable of affecting rights, including punitive administrative proceedings. [16]

The same report identifies, in administrative proceedings, guarantees including legal assistance, exercise of the right of defense, sufficient time to ascertain and refute charges, reasonable time to prepare and formalize arguments, and the ability to seek and adduce evidence. [16]

Thus, the proposition that due process and defense guarantees reach beyond Criminal Law is supported independently by the Brazilian Constitution, Brazilian civil-procedure legislation, Brazilian administrative-procedure legislation, the American Convention, and the standards identified by the Inter-American Commission. [3][5][8][13][16]

9. LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL PREROGATIVES AND ACCESS TO EVIDENCE

The right of access must also be examined through the professional prerogatives of Brazilian lawyers.

Article 7, XIV, of Law No. 8,906/1994 guarantees lawyers the right to examine, even without a power of attorney, records of arrests in flagrante delicto and investigations of any nature, completed or ongoing, in any institution responsible for conducting investigations, including the ability to copy documents and take notes in physical or digital form. [6][7]

The law itself specifies the boundary concerning ongoing investigative measures. Paragraph 11 permits the competent authority to delimit access to evidentiary elements connected with ongoing measures that have not yet been documented in the record where disclosure would risk compromising the efficiency, effectiveness, or purpose of those measures. [7]

Paragraph 12 then addresses the opposite problem: failure to observe the access right, incomplete provision of the record, or provision of a record from which already-included pieces have been removed, where access is intentionally obstructed to prejudice the exercise of defense. [7]

This statutory distinction is important because it prevents two opposite errors. Brazilian law does not establish that every ongoing and undocumented investigative measure must be immediately revealed. But once evidentiary elements have been documented and fall within the defense-access guarantee, incomplete provision or removal of already-included material is specifically addressed by statute. [7]

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court’s Binding Precedent No. 14 — Súmula Vinculante 14 similarly recognizes the defense right, in the interest of the represented person, to broad access to evidentiary elements already documented in an investigative procedure conducted by an authority with judicial-police powers and related to the exercise of defense. [9]

The relationship between these rules and AREsp 3.028.845/PR is direct at the level of procedural function: effective legal representation cannot operate upon an evidentiary source that counsel is prevented from examining at the time when defense decisions must be made.

10. BRAZILIAN LEGAL COMMENTARY ON AREsp 3.028.845/PR

Secondary commentary must be clearly distinguished from the judicial decision itself. The following authors did not issue the holding; they commented upon or disseminated it. The primary authority remains the official STJ judgment retrieved through reference [1].

10.1. Evinis Talon

Brazilian criminal defense lawyer Evinis Talon published the article “STJ: acesso parcial a provas impõe nulidade processual” on July 1, 2026. A literal English rendering of the title is:

“STJ: Partial Access to Evidence Results in Procedural Nullity.” [10]

In his publicly available introductory commentary, Talon identifies the June 16, 2026 Fifth Panel judgment, Justice Ribeiro Dantas as Reporting Justice, the nullity of procedural acts from the response to the accusation onward, and the Court’s conclusion that disclosure of the environmental recordings only after final arguments did not ensure substantive adversarial proceedings or restore equality of arms.

He also identifies the defense right to full, timely, and useful access to the evidentiary body under State custody. After this introductory commentary, his page reproduces the official STJ headnote. [10]

10.2. Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante — Dizer o Direito

The Buscador Dizer o Direito, in material attributed by the website itself to Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante, publishes the following title:

“A defesa tem direito de acesso integral e tempestivo às gravações mantidas sob custódia estatal; a juntada das gravações apenas após as alegações finais gera nulidade, mesmo que o juiz tenha renovado a oportunidade de apresentar novas alegações finais.” [11]

A literal English translation of that title is:

“The defense has the right to full and timely access to recordings maintained under State custody; the filing of the recordings only after final arguments results in nullity, even if the judge reopened the opportunity to submit new final arguments.”

The page identifies the source as STJ Informativo No. 895, reproduces the official headnote, and then begins a section titled Comentários do julgado — “Comments on the Judgment.” [11]

In the publicly accessible part of that commentary, Cavalcante explains in simplified factual terms that an investigation concerned alleged bribes connected with changes in urban zoning; conversations were recorded and delivered to Gaeco; the recordings remained in the Gaeco database; the defense complained that it did not have access to their complete content; the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed the media only after final arguments; and the judge then reopened the period for supplemental final arguments. [11]

The public page then displays “Quer ver o conteúdo completo?” — “Want to see the complete content?” and restricts the continuation to subscribers. [11]

11. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN-RIGHTS STANDARDS

11.1. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights guarantees judicial protection through proceedings conducted with due guarantees.

Article 8(2)(c) specifically guarantees, in criminal proceedings:

adequate time and means for the preparation of the defense.

Article 8(2)(d) protects legal representation and communication with counsel.

Article 8(2)(f) protects the ability to examine witnesses and obtain the appearance of other witnesses or experts capable of clarifying the facts.

The logic is closely related to AREsp 3.028.845/PR.A defense deprived of evidence during witness examination may lose opportunities that cannot be recreated by a later written submission.

Article 8(1) of the American Convention expressly guarantees due process in the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, [12][13] , while Article 5, LIV and LV, of the Brazilian Constitution guarantees due process of law and expressly extends adversarial proceedings and full defense to litigants in judicial or administrative proceedings.

Article 8(2), in the context of criminal accusation, contains specific minimum guarantees, including adequate time and means for preparation of the defense, legal representation, and the ability to examine witnesses and obtain the appearance of persons capable of clarifying the facts. [13]

For purposes of comparison with AREsp 3.028.845/PR, the most immediate common point is effective preparation of defense.

The STJ’s own judgment describes the opportunities lost when evidence is disclosed only after the defense has already structured its case and participated in the evidentiary phase.

DUE PROCESS BEYOND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 8(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION

This is especially important for the broader constitutional chapter.

Article 8(1) of the American Convention is not restricted to criminal accusations.

It protects the right to a hearing with due guarantees for the determination of rights and obligations of a:

civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.

The Inter-American Convention therefore expressly recognizes that procedural justice extends beyond criminal law.

A technical distinction must nevertheless be preserved.

The specific minimum guarantees enumerated in Article 8(2) are formulated for persons accused of criminal offenses.

They cannot simply be transplanted mechanically into every type of civil or administrative case.

But the core requirements of:

fair procedure;

meaningful participation;

adequate opportunity to defend;

and procedural equality

extend beyond criminal proceedings under Article 8(1).

11.2. THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Again, the relevant point is not that the ICCPR and Brazilian procedural law are identical. The source-grounded connection is that both treat meaningful preparation and participation as elements of fair proceedings

Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all persons are equal before courts and tribunals and guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of criminal charges or civil rights and obligations. [14]

In criminal proceedings, Article 14 further includes guarantees relating to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defense and examination of witnesses. [14]

Article 14(3)(e) guarantees the ability to examine prosecution witnesses and obtain defense witnesses under equivalent conditions.

These guarantees again emphasize that legal representation is not meaningful if counsel lacks the materials necessary to prepare the defense.

11.3 UNITED NATIONS BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers are not themselves a treaty. They nevertheless constitute an important international normative standard concerning effective legal representation.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted in 1990, contain an especially relevant provision concerning professional access, constitute an important international standard regarding the institutional conditions required for effective legal representation.

Principle 21 places upon competent authorities the duty to ensure lawyers access to appropriate information, files, and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to allow effective legal assistance. [15]

The element of time is explicit in the international standard.

Access is not described merely as eventual physical availability; it must occur sufficiently early to be useful and to permit effective legal assistance. [15]

The guarantees of due process of law, full defense, effective adversarial proceedings, and equality of arms are not confined to criminal proceedings.

12. INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN-RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE

The Inter-American system provides particularly strong support for the proposition that due process is not limited to criminal adjudication.

The Inter-American Commission’s report [16], discussing Inter-American Court jurisprudence including administrative-sanction proceedings, records that Article 8 requirements must be observed so that persons can adequately defend their rights against State actions capable of affecting them.

The report specifically describes due process guarantees in administrative proceedings and identifies the right to defense, legal assistance, time to prepare arguments, and the ability to seek and present evidence. [16]

Two important Inter-American Court judgments relevant to defense guarantees are Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206, and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135.

12.1 BARRETO LEIVA v. VENEZUELA

In Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court addressed the effective exercise of defense and emphasized the importance of adequate procedural opportunities for the accused.

The case is relevant to the STJ decision because both frameworks reject an understanding of defense as a merely ceremonial right.

12.2 PALAMARA IRIBARNE v. CHILE

Palamara Iribarne v. Chile is also relevant because restrictions upon access to proceedings affected the ability of the accused and counsel to formulate and conduct the defense.

The structural principle is directly useful here: a defense required to decide what to request and how to challenge the State’s case without adequate access to the evidentiary basis operates under an informational disadvantage that later disclosure may not repair.

Their official Court records are included in references [17] and [18].

The Inter-American comparison in this article rests primarily upon the explicit text of Article 8 and upon the standards summarized by the Inter-American Commission in reference [16].

13. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: DISCLOSURE AND EFFECTIVE DEFENSE

13.1. Matanović v. Croatia

Matanović v. Croatia, Application No. 2742/12, decided on April 4, 2017, provides a close comparative example because it concerned secret-surveillance recordings, evidentiary nondisclosure, and the defense’s ability to assess material in the prosecution’s possession. [19]

The European Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the nondisclosure of certain evidence. The official Court material explains that the absence of adequate procedural safeguards prevented the applicant from determining whether recordings held by the prosecution but excluded from the case file could have called into question the scope of the alleged criminal activity or affected the sentence. [19]

The similarity with AREsp 3.028.845/PR lies in the procedural question: evidence may matter to the defense even where prosecuting authorities have decided not to rely upon it.

13.2. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom

In Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], Application No. 28901/95, judgment of February 16, 2000, the European Court considered nondisclosure of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. [20]

The case forms part of the European Court’s jurisprudence concerning disclosure, adversarial proceedings, and procedural safeguards when evidence is withheld.

This jurisprudence does not establish that every piece of State information must always be disclosed without qualification. Rather, European case law subjects nondisclosure to fair-trial scrutiny and requires adequate procedural safeguards where defense rights are restricted.

13.3. Natunen v. Finland

Natunen v. Finland, Application No. 21022/04, judgment of March 31, 2009, is another ECHR authority in the disclosure line of cases. [21]

Later European Court jurisprudence continues to cite Natunen together with Rowe and Davis and Matanović when discussing disclosure of relevant evidence and the fairness of criminal proceedings.

14. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

14.1. Brady v. Maryland

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court established the constitutional rule that suppression by the prosecution of favorable material evidence violates due process. [22]

An important feature of the Brady formulation is that the constitutional violation does not depend upon whether the prosecution acted in good faith or bad faith. The Supreme Court itself repeated that principle in later Brady jurisprudence. [22][25]

There is a clear functional point of comparison with AREsp 3.028.845/PR: the STJ likewise held that the absence of prosecutorial intent or bad faith did not remove the defect arising from the way State-held evidence was made available to the defense.

14.2. Kyles v. Whitley

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) is a central United States Supreme Court decision in the development of Brady doctrine and the assessment of suppressed favorable evidence. [23]

For this article, Kyles is relevant as part of the United States constitutional framework governing prosecution disclosure.

It should not, however, be treated as though it created the Brazilian rules applied in AREsp 3.028.845/PR.

The Brazilian judgment is grounded in a different constitutional and statutory system.

14.3. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) demonstrates an important limitation in the United States comparison. [24]

Ritchie did not recognize an unsupervised defense right to search confidential State files. The Supreme Court held that in camera judicial review could protect the accused’s legitimate interest in potentially material evidence while also protecting the State’s confidentiality interests. [24]

This matters because Brady doctrine should not be inaccurately described as a general American constitutional “open-file” rule.

14.4. Wearry v. Cain

In Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (2016), the Supreme Court applied Brady principles to previously undisclosed evidence affecting the reliability of the prosecution’s case. [25]

The Court concluded that the newly revealed evidence was sufficient to undermine confidence in the conviction. [25]

Wearry reinforces the proposition that the significance of undisclosed evidence must be assessed in relation to the evidentiary case as a whole, not simply by asking whether the withheld information independently proves innocence.

14.5. Why AREsp 3.028.845/PR Is Not Simply a “Brazilian Brady”

It would be inaccurate to describe AREsp 3.028.845/PR as merely a “Brazilian Brady rule.”

Brady and its progeny arise from United States constitutional due-process doctrine concerning prosecutorial suppression of favorable material evidence. [22]-[25]

The Brazilian decision arises from a different legal structure and expressly addresses full, timely, and verifiable defense access to recorded evidence under State custody, digital chain of custody, completeness, defense control over the evidentiary source, equality of arms, and the loss of procedural opportunities from the response to the accusation through the evidentiary phase. [1]

The comparison is therefore comparative and functional, not an assertion of legal identity.

15. SOURCE-GROUNDED COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

The sources examined in this article permit several conclusions without attributing propositions to courts that did not make them.

First, AREsp 3.028.845/PR establishes, as a matter of Brazilian criminal procedure in the case before it, that access to recorded evidence under State custody must be full, timely, and verifiable; prosecutorial selection does not substitute for defense control; and late disclosure after final arguments does not automatically restore the procedural opportunities lost during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase. [1]

Second, the Brazilian Constitution itself establishes that due process, adversarial proceedings, and full defense are not confined to Criminal Law. Article 5, LV expressly covers litigants in judicial or administrative proceedings. [3]

Third, Brazilian civil procedure expressly protects parity of treatment and effective adversarial proceedings, requires prior hearing as a general rule, and prohibits judicial reliance upon grounds on which the parties had no opportunity to be heard. [5]

Fourth, Brazilian federal administrative procedure expressly lists full defense and adversarial proceedings among its governing principles. [8]

Fifth, the American Convention itself extends Article 8(1) due guarantees beyond criminal accusation to determinations of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. [13]

The Inter-American Commission’s account of Inter-American standards further states that due process cannot be limited to judicial actions and recognizes defense guarantees in administrative proceedings. [16]

Sixth, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers expressly connect effective legal assistance to access to information, files, and documents in sufficient time. [15]

Seventh, the European and United States authorities examined here show that evidence disclosure, defense access, confidentiality, prosecutorial obligations, and procedural safeguards have also generated substantial fair-trial jurisprudence outside Brazil. [19]-[25] These foreign doctrines are not identical to Brazilian law, but they provide relevant comparative material concerning effective defense and evidentiary fairness.

16. CONCLUSION

AREsp 3.028.845/PR is significant because the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice did not reduce adversarial proceedings to the formal possibility of filing a later submission.

The Court examined what the defense had been unable to do before the evidence became fully available: define strategy in an informed manner, formulate requests, question witnesses with knowledge of the complete source, produce counterevidence, and evaluate whether expert examination was necessary.

The judgment also recognizes that digital chain of custody concerns more than the absence of visible tampering. Completeness, context, traceability, authenticity, and reliability matter because a fragment can be authentic and yet fail to reveal the complete evidentiary source from which it was selected.

The Court’s five formal holdings leave little ambiguity about the criminal case before it: evidence under State custody had to be made available fully, timely, and verifiably; unilateral prosecutorial selection could not substitute for defense review; late filing did not automatically cure loss of useful access; the violation implicated chain of custody, equality of arms, and evidentiary reliability; and the defect required nullity from the response to the accusation onward.

The broader constitutional proposition addressed in this article is equally clear from the primary legal texts: due process of law, full defense, and adversarial proceedings are not limited to Criminal Law.

Article 5, LIV and LV of the Brazilian Constitution establishes due process and expressly protects litigants in judicial or administrative proceedings. [3]

Brazilian civil procedure protects effective adversarial proceedings. [5]

Federal administrative procedure expressly protects full defense and adversarial proceedings. [8]

Article 8(1) of the American Convention extends due guarantees to the determination of civil, labor, fiscal, and other rights and obligations. [13] Inter-American standards expressly recognize due-process requirements in administrative proceedings. [16]

The central proposition supported by the STJ judgment can therefore be stated without adding anything the Court did not say:

The defense must not merely receive evidence. In the context adjudicated by the STJ, it must receive State-held recorded evidence fully, timely, and verifiably, while the procedural opportunities necessary to use that evidence effectively still exist. [1]

---

APPENDIX I — UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE OFFICIAL STJ HEADNOTE AND FIVE HOLDINGS

AGRAVO EM RECURSO ESPECIAL — AREsp No. 3,028,845/PR

Registry No. 2025/0322817-9

Reporting Justice: Justice Ribeiro Dantas

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice — Fifth Panel

Judgment: June 16, 2026

Publication: DJEN/CNJ, June 23, 2026

Translator’s Note

The following is an unofficial English translation prepared for informational, academic, comparative-law, and human-rights purposes.

The official and legally authoritative text is the Portuguese-language judgment issued by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice. The judgment may be located through the official STJ search system identified in reference [1].

HEADNOTE

CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AGRAVO EM RECURSO ESPECIAL. CRIMINAL ACTION FOR PASSIVE CORRUPTION, ACTIVE CORRUPTION, ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY, AND CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDINGS MAINTAINED UNDER STATE CUSTODY. LATE FILING AFTER FINAL ARGUMENTS. FULL AND TIMELY ACCESS BY THE DEFENSE. CHAIN OF CUSTODY. SUBSTANTIVE ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS. NULLITY FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION. APPEAL ENTERTAINED. SPECIAL APPEAL PARTIALLY GRANTED.

I. Case under examination

1. Appeal filed against a decision that denied admission of a Special Appeal, in a criminal action in which the appellant was convicted, following adjudication of appeals by the Court of Justice of the State of Paraná, for crimes related to obtaining undue advantages in procedures for approval of legislative projects, alteration of urban zoning, issuance of administrative opinions, and processing of private interests before municipal bodies of Londrina/PR. In the Special Appeal, the defense alleged nullity due to the withholding, manipulation, disappearance, or late filing of environmental recordings delivered to Gaeco, in violation of chain of custody, adversarial proceedings, full defense, and the commonality of evidence.

2. Relevant fact. Environmental recordings stored in a Gaeco system were filed in the electronic proceedings (Projudi) at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7 after submission of final arguments, with reopening of the period for defense supplementation. It was alleged that there had been no full and timely access to the evidentiary body, preventing control over its origin, provenance, storage, possible alteration, and reliability.

3. Prior decisions. The judgment partially granted the claims contained in the indictment. On appeal, the local Court rejected alleged nullities concerning interceptions, environmental recordings, chain of custody, and adversarial proceedings, acquitted some co-defendants, and maintained the remaining convictions. Motions for clarification were rejected. The Special Appeal was denied admission at origin, followed by the present appeal, with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office recommending that the appeal be entertained and that the Special Appeal not proceed.

II. Issue under discussion

4. There are two issues under discussion: (i) whether the filing of environmental recordings only after the evidentiary phase and final arguments, although before judgment and with reopening of a period for a defense submission, ensures effective adversarial proceedings and full access to evidence maintained under State custody; and (ii) whether the absence of full and timely access to the environmental recordings compromises chain of custody and the reliability of the evidentiary body and requires nullity of procedural acts from the response to the accusation onward.

III. Reasons for deciding

5. The defense has the right to access not only evidence selected by the prosecution to support the indictment, but also evidentiary material maintained under State custody that may contextualize, contradict, or weaken the prosecution’s hypothesis.

6. The assertion that certain recordings were not used to form the opinio delicti does not eliminate the defense’s interest in examining them, because unilateral selection by the prosecution of material regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source.

7. Chain of custody of digital evidence is not limited to the absence of adulteration, because it also requires preservation of the integrality, traceability, authenticity, completeness, and reliability of the evidentiary body.

8. Late filing of recordings after final arguments does not, by itself, ensure substantive adversarial proceedings, because the defense had already passed through essential phases of the proceeding without access to the material necessary to define strategy, formulate requests, produce counterevidence, and confront witnesses.

9. Reopening the period to supplement final arguments permits a subsequent formal submission but does not restore the opportunity to use the evidence from the response to the accusation and throughout the evidentiary phase.

10. Absence of intent or bad faith by the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not eliminate the defect, because chain of custody also protects against losses, gaps, documentation failures, and evidentiary selections that cannot be controlled by the defense.

11. A judicial declaration that the recordings did not form the basis of conviction does not make the absence of full access to the evidentiary body irrelevant, because the defense has the right to verify whether the prosecution’s narrative was constructed from a partial, incomplete, or decontextualized reading of the evidentiary source.

12. Absence of concrete demonstration that the defense had complete, timely, and useful access to the recordings prevents the conclusion that no prejudice occurred, particularly when the material had been stored in a Gaeco database and was subsequently located by the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself.

13. The response to the accusation constitutes the first moment in the structuring of technical defense, which is why lack of full access to the recordings at that stage generates informational asymmetry incompatible with substantive adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

14. Nullity must reach the acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, with reopening of the corresponding period after full availability of the recordings, raw data, and elements necessary to control the origin, custody, completeness, authenticity, and reliability of the evidence.

IV. Disposition and holding

15. Judgment Result: Appeal entertained and Special Appeal partially granted to declare null the acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, ordering the return of the proceedings to the court of origin to ensure full access to the environmental recordings, raw data, and custody elements, with subsequent renewal of the affected evidentiary acts; remaining appellate issues rendered moot.

FIVE FORMAL HOLDINGS

1. Recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner.

2. Unilateral selection, by the prosecution, of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source.

3. Filing environmental recordings after final arguments, even if before judgment and with a period for a supplemental submission, does not automatically restore adversarial proceedings when the defense was deprived of useful access to the evidentiary body during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase.

4. Violation of full and timely access to digital or recorded evidence compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and the reliability of the evidentiary process.

5. Once the defect is recognized, the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward must be declared null, with renewal of the affected evidentiary acts.

---

APPENDIX II — KEY PASSAGES OF THE STJ OPINION IN ENGLISH

On evidence not selected by the prosecution

The STJ explained that the defense does not have an interest only in evidence chosen by the prosecution to support the accusation. Material not selected may contain elements capable of contextualizing, contradicting, or weakening the prosecution’s hypothesis.

On completeness and digital chain of custody

The Court stated that chain of custody of digital evidence is not exhausted by integrity understood merely as absence of alteration. It also encompasses the completeness of the evidentiary body and preservation of the material in a complete, contextualized form subject to control by the parties. Evidence may show no sign of alteration and nevertheless be procedurally problematic if it enters adversarial proceedings as a fragment of a broader evidentiary body whose completeness has not been demonstrated.

On prosecutorial good faith

The Court stated that absence of intent or deliberate purpose by the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not resolve the issue. Chain of custody is intended not only to prevent intentional alterations, but also to ensure traceability, integrity, and completeness so that losses, gaps, documentation failures, or uncontrolled selections do not compromise reliability.

On evidence not expressly used in the conviction

The Court explained that the relevance of evidence is not limited to its direct use as a basis for conviction. Material can alter the context in which other evidence is understood, reveal an incomplete narrative, or permit the defense to challenge the prosecution’s selection.

On unilateral prosecutorial selection

The Court stated that selection by the prosecution, even when not accompanied by bad faith, does not substitute for defense examination of the evidentiary source. If recordings are under State custody or availability, conditions must exist for the defense to verify their integrity and completeness.

On the procedural time of access

On the response to the accusation

“The response to the accusation is the first moment of structuring the technical defense in criminal procedure. It is there that the accused party may raise preliminary matters, identify evidence, formulate requests, and establish the line of defense that will guide the evidentiary phase. If, at that moment, the defense does not know the entirety of the environmental recordings that were under State control, its activity is already conditioned by an informational asymmetry incompatible with substantive adversarial proceedings.”

On why supplemental final arguments are insufficient

The STJ concluded that later supplementation permits only a late reaction to evidence that should have guided the defense throughout the proceeding. Supplemental final arguments do not substitute for a response to the accusation prepared with prior knowledge of the evidentiary body and do not reproduce evidentiary opportunities that have already expired.

On the remedy

The Court ordered nullity from the response to the accusation onward, reopening of the corresponding period after full disclosure of the recordings, corresponding raw data, and elements necessary to verify origin, custody, completeness, authenticity, and reliability, followed by renewal of affected evidentiary acts.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT — COMPLETE UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ)

Fifth Panel

AREsp No. 3,028,845/PR — Registry No. 2025/0322817-9

Reporting Justice: Justice Ribeiro Dantas

Judgment: June 16, 2026

Publication in DJEN/CNJ: June 23, 2026

Translator’s Note: The text below is a complete unofficial English translation of the 25-page official judgment provided in this conversation. The page order, repetitions, quoted decisions, recorded dialogues, cited precedents, disposition, electronic-document notices, and certificate of judgment are preserved. Where the official source itself contains typographical concatenations or an apparently inconsistent date, they are not silently corrected.

---

PAGE 1 OF 25

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL No. 3028845 - PR

(2025/0322817-9)

REPORTING JUSTICE: JUSTICE RIBEIRO DANTAS

APPELLANT: MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI

ATTORNEYS: MICHEL NEME NETO - PR044283

ANDERSON FELIPE MARIANO - PR065667

APPELLANT: OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA

ATTORNEYS: ANTÔNIO BACCARIN - PR013380

GABRIEL BERTIN DE ALMEIDA - PR024837

FLÁVIO HENRIQUE CAETANO DE PAULA - PR038441

FRANCISCO LUÍS HIPÓLITO GALLI - PR038735

RODOLFO LUIZ BRESSAN SPIGAI - PR044950

CLAUDIA DA ROCHA - PR084637

LUIZA RADIGONDA LOPES - PR111795

ANA BEATRIZ DA LUZ - PR088352

APPELLANT: LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA

ATTORNEYS: FRANCISCO DE ASSIS DO REGO MONTEIRO ROCHA JUNIOR - PR029071

HELLEN LUANA DE SOUZA - PR116557

JOÃO RAFAEL DE OLIVEIRA - PR056722

LUCIANA GABARDO - PR078507

APPELLANT: RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES

ATTORNEY: MAURÍCIO DE OLIVEIRA CARNEIRO - PR030485

APPELLEE: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE STATE OF PARANÁ

CO-DEFENDANT: EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO

CO-DEFENDANT: CLEUBER MORAES BRITO

CO-DEFENDANT: IGNES DEQUECH ALVARES

CO-DEFENDANT: HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA

CO-DEFENDANT: VANDER MENDES FERREIRA

CO-DEFENDANT: BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA

CO-DEFENDANT: JOSÉ DE LIMA CASTRO NETO

CO-DEFENDANT: ANTONIO CARLOS GOMES DIAS

CO-DEFENDANT: JULIO CESAR CARDOSO

HEADNOTE

Electronic document VDA57778191 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:35.

Publication in DJEN/CNJ of 06/23/2026. Document Control Code: dcec76e9-72ab-43e9-a4b9-cc95295d3ab4.

---

PAGE 2 OF 25

CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL. CRIMINAL ACTION FOR PASSIVE CORRUPTION, ACTIVE CORRUPTION, ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY, AND CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDINGS MAINTAINED UNDER STATE CUSTODY. LATE FILING AFTER FINAL ARGUMENTS. FULL AND TIMELY ACCESS BY THE DEFENSE. CHAIN OF CUSTODY. SUBSTANTIVE ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS. NULLITY FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION. APPEAL ENTERTAINED. SPECIAL APPEAL PARTIALLY GRANTED.

I. Case under examination

2. Relevant fact. Environmental recordings stored in a Gaeco system were filed in the electronic proceedings (Projudi) at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7 after submission of final arguments, with reopening of the period for defense supplementation. It is alleged that there was no full and timely access to the evidentiary body, making it impossible to control the origin, provenance, storage, possible alteration, and reliability of the material.

3. Prior decisions. The judgment partially granted the claims in the indictment. On appeal, the local Court rejected nullities concerning interceptions, environmental recordings, chain of custody, and adversarial proceedings, acquitted some co-defendants, and maintained the remaining convictions. Motions for clarification were rejected. The Special Appeal was denied admission at origin, followed by an interlocutory appeal, with an opinion from the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office recommending that the appeal be entertained and that the Special Appeal not proceed.

II. Issue under discussion

4. There are two issues under discussion: (i) determining whether the filing of environmental recordings only after the evidentiary phase and final arguments, although before judgment and with reopening of a period for a defense submission, ensures effective adversarial proceedings and full access to evidence maintained under State custody; (ii) establishing whether the absence of full and timely access to the environmental recordings compromises chain of custody and the reliability of the evidentiary body and requires nullity of procedural acts from the response to the accusation onward.

III. Reasons for deciding

8. Late filing of the recordings after final arguments does not, by itself, ensure substantive adversarial proceedings, because the defense had already passed through essential phases of the proceeding without access to the material necessary to define strategy, formulate requests, produce counterevidence, and confront witnesses.

Electronic document VDA57778191 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:35.

Publication in DJEN/CNJ of 06/23/2026. Document Control Code: dcec76e9-72ab-43e9-a4b9-cc95295d3ab4.

---

PAGE 3 OF 25

11. A judicial declaration that the recordings did not form the basis of the conviction does not make the absence of full access to the evidentiary body irrelevant, because the defense has the right to verify whether the prosecution’s narrative was constructed from a partial, incomplete, or decontextualized reading of the evidentiary source.

12. The absence of concrete demonstration that the defense had complete, timely, and useful access to the recordings prevents the conclusion that no prejudice occurred, especially when the material was stored in a Gaeco database and was subsequently located by the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself.

13. The response to the accusation constitutes the first moment in the structuring of technical defense, which is why the lack of full access to the recordings at that stage generates informational asymmetry incompatible with substantive adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

14. Nullity must reach the acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, with reopening of the respective period after full availability of the recordings, raw data, and the elements necessary to control the origin, custody, completeness, authenticity, and reliability of the evidence.

IV. Disposition and holding

HOLDING

1. Recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner.

2. Unilateral selection, by the prosecution, of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source.

4. Violation of full and timely access to digital or recorded evidence compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and the reliability of the evidentiary process.

5. Once the defect is recognized, the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward must be declared null, with renewal of the affected evidentiary acts.

Relevant provisions cited: Constitution of the Republic/1988, art. 105, § 3, I; Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 158-A through 158-F; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 402; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 157, § 1.

Relevant case law cited: STJ, AgRg no RHC 184.003/SP, Reporting Justice Daniela Teixeira, Justice writing for the judgment Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, decided 12/10/2024; STJ, RHC 218.358/PI, Reporting Justice Sebastião Reis Júnior, Sixth Panel, decided 11/04/2025; STJ, HC 1.047.527/TO, single-Justice decision, Justice Carlos Pires Brandão.

JUDGMENT

Having seen and reported these proceedings, in which the parties are those indicated above, the Justices of the Panel unanimously agree to entertain the appeal and partially grant the Special Appeal, in accordance with the opinion of the Reporting Justice.

Justices Joel Ilan Paciornik, Messod Azulay Neto, Maria Marluce Caldas, and Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca voted with the Reporting Justice.

Brasília, June 16, 2026.

Justice Ribeiro Dantas

Reporting Justice

Electronic document VDA57778191 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:35.

Publication in DJEN/CNJ of 06/23/2026. Document Control Code: dcec76e9-72ab-43e9-a4b9-cc95295d3ab4.

---

PAGES 4–6 OF 25 — REPEATED IDENTIFICATION AND HEADNOTE IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT

The official 25-page file repeats the case identification and the headnote. The repetition is preserved below.

PAGE 4 OF 25

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL No. 3028845 - PR

(2025/0322817-9)

REPORTING JUSTICE: JUSTICE RIBEIRO DANTAS

APPELLANT: MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI

ATTORNEYS: MICHEL NEME NETO - PR044283

ANDERSON FELIPE MARIANO - PR065667

APPELLANT: OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA

ATTORNEYS: ANTÔNIO BACCARIN - PR013380

GABRIEL BERTIN DE ALMEIDA - PR024837

FLÁVIO HENRIQUE CAETANO DE PAULA - PR038441

FRANCISCO LUÍS HIPÓLITO GALLI - PR038735

RODOLFO LUIZ BRESSAN SPIGAI - PR044950

CLAUDIA DA ROCHA - PR084637

LUIZA RADIGONDA LOPES - PR111795

ANA BEATRIZ DA LUZ - PR088352

APPELLANT: LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA

ATTORNEYS: FRANCISCO DE ASSIS DO REGO MONTEIRO ROCHA JUNIOR - PR029071

HELLEN LUANA DE SOUZA - PR116557

JOÃO RAFAEL DE OLIVEIRA - PR056722

LUCIANA GABARDO - PR078507

APPELLANT: RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES

ATTORNEY: MAURÍCIO DE OLIVEIRA CARNEIRO - PR030485

APPELLEE: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE STATE OF PARANÁ

CO-DEFENDANT: EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO

CO-DEFENDANT: CLEUBER MORAES BRITO

CO-DEFENDANT: IGNES DEQUECH ALVARES

CO-DEFENDANT: HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA

CO-DEFENDANT: VANDER MENDES FERREIRA

CO-DEFENDANT: BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA

CO-DEFENDANT: JOSÉ DE LIMA CASTRO NETO

CO-DEFENDANT: ANTONIO CARLOS GOMES DIAS

CO-DEFENDANT: JULIO CESAR CARDOSO

HEADNOTE

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

PAGE 5 OF 25

I. Case under examination

2. Relevant fact. Environmental recordings stored in a Gaeco system were filed in the electronic proceedings (Projudi) at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7 after submission of final arguments, with reopening of the period for defense supplementation. It is alleged that there was no full and timely access to the evidentiary body, making it impossible to control the origin, provenance, storage, possible alteration, and reliability of the material.

3. Prior decisions. The judgment partially granted the claims in the indictment. On appeal, the local Court rejected nullities concerning interceptions, environmental recordings, chain of custody, and adversarial proceedings, acquitted some co-defendants, and maintained the remaining convictions. Motions for clarification were rejected. The Special Appeal was denied admission at origin, followed by an appeal, with an opinion from the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office recommending that the appeal be entertained and that the Special Appeal not proceed.

II. Issue under discussion

III. Reasons for deciding

7. Chain of custody of digital evidence is not limited to absence of adulteration, because it also requires preservation of the integrality, traceability, authenticity, completeness, and reliability of the evidentiary body.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

PAGE 6 OF 25

IV. Disposition and holding

HOLDING

1. Recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner. 2. Unilateral selection, by the prosecution, of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source. 3. Filing environmental recordings after final arguments, even if before judgment and with a period for a supplemental submission, does not automatically restore adversarial proceedings when the defense was deprived of useful access to the evidentiary body during the response to the accusation and the evidentiary phase. 4. Violation of full and timely access to digital or recorded evidence compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and the reliability of the evidentiary process. 5. Once the defect is recognized, the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward must be declared null, with renewal of the affected evidentiary acts.

Relevant provisions cited: CR/1988, art. 105, § 3, I; CPP, arts. 158-A through 158-F; CPP, art. 402; CPP, art. 157, § 1.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 7 OF 25

REPORT

This is an appeal against the decision that denied admission of the Special Appeal filed by RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES, based on item “a” of the constitutional authorization, against a judgment rendered by the COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF PARANÁ, whose headnote reads as follows (pp. 28650-28811):

> “CRIMINAL APPEALS. PASSIVE AND ACTIVE CORRUPTION, ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY AND CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION (ARTS. 317, 333 AND 321 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AND 2, § 4, II, OF LAW No. 12,850/2013). INDICTMENT . PARTIALLY GRANTED.

APPEALS BY THE DEFENDANTS. ALLEGED NULLITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE ILLEGALITY OF TELEPHONE INTERCEPTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDINGS. VALIDITY EXHAUSTIVELY DEBATED IN HABEAS CORPUS AND ALREADY CONFIRMED BY THE STJ. VARIOUS NECESSARY INVESTIGATIVE MEASURES CARRIED OUT IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ANONYMOUS REPORT AND PERFORMED IN ORDER THEN TO BEGIN A FORMAL INVESTIGATION. ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLES 2, 4 AND 5 OF LAW 9,296/96 AND ART. 5, ITEM XII, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (JUDICIAL-RESERVATION CLAUSE) PRESENT, PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE NEED FOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE BREACH OF TELEPHONE CONFIDENTIALITY BY A COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, WITHIN THE PERIOD ESTABLISHED BY LAW AND, FURTHER, WITH AN INDICATION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATIVE MEASURE WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT. COMPLEX INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZING SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS. DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF THE VICTIM IN THE CONVERSATION, THUS SHARING HIS PRIVACY WITH THE OTHER PARTY. PRECISELY AT THIS POINT NOTHING PREVENTS HIM FROM MAKING A RECORDING INDEPENDENTLY OF JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION. ABSENCE OF ANY ACT BY THE VICTIM INSTIGATING OR INDUCING THE DEFENDANTS TO COMMIT A CRIME.

ALLEGED NULLITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF MANIPULATION AND/OR OMISSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LACK OF REASONING IN THE JUDGMENT. NOT OCCURRED. NEW ACCESS OPENED TO THE DEFENSES AFTER THE REFERRED EVIDENCE WAS ATTACHED. EVIDENTIARY ELEMENTS NOT USED IN THE JUDGE’S CONVICTION AND WHICH, FURTHERMORE, WERE EVEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCUSED. ABSENCE OF SIGNS OF ADULTERATION IN THE MATERIAL. DATA FROM THE BREACH OF BANK CONFIDENTIALITY MADE AVAILABLE AND KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE. PREVALENCE OF THE MAXIM PAS DE NULLITÉ SANS GRIEF. JUDGMENT CONCISE, BUT DULY REASONED. UNNECESSARY TO DEBATE THE DEFENSE THEORIES POINT BY POINT. CLAIM OF NULLITY BY JÚLIO CESAR CARDOSO DUE TO THE LOSS OF HIS CELL PHONE SENT FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION. CONTENT FULLY EXTRACTED BEFORE THE LOSS. NULLITIES NOT FOUND.

APPEALS BY DEFENDANTS BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA, MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI, RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES AND VANDER MENDES FERREIRA, EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO, LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA AND OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 8 OF 25

Translator’s note concerning this page: the quoted headnote in the official STJ document itself contains typographical concatenations such as “DASORGANIZAÇÃO,” “ALHODOSIMETRIA,” and “OSSAMUCORRUPÇÃO.” The sequence is preserved below without pretending that the source is typographically regular.

> “ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. PARTIAL GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUITTING, PURSUANT TO ART. 386, VII, OF THE CPP, BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA, MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI, RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES AND VANDER MENDES FERREIRA OF THE CHARGES RELATING TO THE CRIME OF , EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO OFTHECRIMINAL ORGANIZATION CHARGES RELATING TO CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AND PASSIVE CORRUPTION/ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY, DESCRIBED IN , LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA OFTHEFACT 11 CHARGES RELATING TO CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AND OF AND OSSAMUACTIVE CORRUPTION, DESCRIBED IN FACT KAMINAGAKURA OF THE CHARGES RELATING TO CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVE CORRUPTION, DESCRIBED IN FACTS 13 AND 15. AS TO THE OTHER CRIMES CHARGED AGAINST THEM, THE CONVICTION REMAINS. MATERIALITY AND AUTHORSHIP ABUNDANTLY PROVEN. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TOGETHER WITH ORAL EVIDENCE. TYPICALITY OF THE CONDUCT ESTABLISHED AND EVIDENT.

REQUEST BY LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHOSENTENCING OF THE PENALTY DA SILVA TO REMOVE THE FORFEITURE PENALTY. IMPOSSIBILITY. CASH SEIZED WHICH IS PRODUCT OR PROCEEDS OBTAINED FROM CRIMINAL PRACTICE. ABSENCE OF PROOF OF LAWFUL ORIGIN.

REQUEST BY DEFENDANTS MARIO TAKAHASHI, OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA AND RONY ALVES TO REMOVE THE NEGATIVELY ASSESSED JUDICIAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND, BY THE LAST TWO, TO REPLACE MATERIAL CONCURRENCE WITH CONTINUING CRIME. IMPOSSIBILITY. FACT THAT DEFENDANTS MARIO TAKAHASHI AND RONY ALVES WERE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS REQUIRING GREATER REPROACHABILITY OF THE CONDUCT. THE STATUS OF POLITICAL AGENT, ELECTED BY THE POPULATION’S TRUST IN THEIR WORK, GIVES GREATER DEGREE OF CENSURE TO THEIR CONDUCT, AS DOES THE FACT THAT OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA HELD THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LONDRINA, AND THE NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CULPABILITY MUST BE MAINTAINED. INDEPENDENT CONDUCT, WITHOUT CONNECTION IN THE CONDITIONS OF TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF EXECUTION. MAINTENANCE OF MATERIAL CONCURRENCE. APPEALS PARTIALLY GRANTED.

APPEALS BY DEFENDANTS ANTÔNIO CARLOS DIAS AND HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA. ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. IMPOSSIBILITY. AUTHORSHIP AND MATERIALITY UNDISPUTED. FIRM AND COHESIVE DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL EVIDENCE. APPEALS DENIED.

APPEAL BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EMENDATIO LIBELLI REGARDING FACT 11, WITH THE CONVICTION OF DEFENDANTS EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO, LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA, RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES AND MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI FOR PASSIVE CORRUPTION, AND THE LATTER ALSO FOR FACT 01. PARTIAL GRANT. ABSENCE OF ROBUST EVIDENCE REGARDING EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIMINAL UNDERTAKING. ACQUITTAL REQUIRED. CONVICTION OF THE OTHERS FOR PASSIVE CORRUPTION FOR THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN FACT 11 AND OF MARIO TAKAHASHI ALSO FOR FACT 01. PARTIAL GRANT, BY MAJORITY. AUTHORSHIP AND MATERIALITY ESTABLISHED REGARDING FACT 11. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COMBINED WITH ORAL EVIDENCE. LEGAL CLASSIFICATION APPROPRIATE. ACQUITTAL OF MARIO TAKAHASHI REGARDING FACT 01 MAINTAINED, BY MAJORITY. REQUEST TO ALTER SENTENCING OF THE DEFENDANTS, WITH NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENT INCREASE OF THE BASE SENTENCE...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 9 OF 25

> “...BASE SENTENCE, OF THE FACTORS CULPABILITY OF THE PENALTY OF ANTÔNIO CARLOS GOMES DIAS, BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA, EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO, HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA, LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DE SOUZA AND VANDER MENDES FERREIRA; CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRIME OF THE SANCTION OF EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO, HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA, LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DE SOUZA, MÁRIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI, OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA AND RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES; AND SOCIAL CONDUCT AND PERSONALITY OF ALL APPELLEES. NOT APPROPRIATE. BASE SENTENCE ADEQUATELY WEIGHED. JUDICIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DO NOT EXCEED WHAT IS NORMAL FOR THE TYPE. ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO EVALUATE THE AGENTS’ SOCIAL CONDUCT AND PERSONALITY. REQUESTED INCREASE OF EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO’S SENTENCE BY APPLICATION OF THE AGGRAVATING FACTOR OF § 2 OF ART. 327 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. POSSIBLE. DEFENDANT WHO HELD A COMMISSIONED POSITION. APPEAL PARTIALLY GRANTED, MAINTAINING MARIO TAKAHASHI’S ACQUITTAL REGARDING FACT 01, BY MAJORITY.”

It appears from the proceedings that the criminal action was filed against Antônio Carlos Gomes Dias, Brasil Filho Theodoro Mello de Souza, Cleuber Moraes Brito, Evandir Duarte de Aquino, Homero Wagner Fronja, Ignes Dequech Alvares, José de Lima Castro Neto, Júlio Cesar Cardoso, Luiz Guilherme Christino Alho da Silva, Mario Hitoshi Neto Takahashi, Ossamu Kaminagakura, Rony dos Santos Alves, and Vander Mendes Ferreira, for the alleged commission of the crimes of passive corruption — art. 317, caput, of the Criminal Code — aggravated passive corruption — art. 317, § 1, of the Criminal Code — administrative advocacy — art. 321 of the Criminal Code — active corruption — art. 333, caput, of the Criminal Code — and aggravated criminal organization — art. 2, § 4, II, of Law No. 12,850/2013, in some cases also with application of art. 2, § 3, of Law No. 12,850/2013 — all, where applicable, in the form of material concurrence — art. 69 of the Criminal Code.

According to the indictment, the accused allegedly formed part of a structure directed toward obtaining undue advantages related to approval of legislative projects, alteration of urban zoning, issuance of administrative opinions, and processing of private interests before municipal bodies of Londrina/PR.

A judgment followed partially granting the requests in the indictment.

Appeals having been filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the defendants, the court of origin rejected the defense preliminary claims of nullity, including those concerning the legality of telephone interceptions and environmental recordings, alleged manipulation or omission of evidence, lack of reasoning in the judgment, chain of custody, adversarial proceedings, and equality of arms.

On the merits, it granted the appeals of Cleuber Moraes Brito, Ignes Dequech Alvares, José de Lima Castro Neto, and Júlio Cesar Cardoso to acquit them entirely, pursuant to art. 386, VII, of the CPP; and partially granted the appeals of other co-defendants to acquit them of specific charges, maintaining, as to the other facts, the remaining convictions for active corruption — art. 333, caput, of the Criminal Code — passive corruption — art. 317, caput, of the CPP — or aggravated passive corruption — art. 317, § 1, of the Criminal Code.

Translator’s note: the reference to “art. 317, caput, of the CPP” appears in the official STJ document as “CPP” and is preserved here rather than silently changed to “CP.”

The prosecution appeal was partially granted to remove, in part, the emendatio libelli relating to fact 11 and convict Luiz Guilherme Christino Alho da Silva, Rony dos Santos Alves, and Mario Hitoshi Neto Takahashi of passive corruption — art. 317, caput, of the Criminal Code — maintaining, by majority, Mario Takahashi’s acquittal regarding fact 01. The request to apply the aggravating factor of art. 327, § 2, of the Criminal Code to Evandir Duarte de Aquino, because he held a commissioned position, was also granted, while the remaining prosecutorial requests for an increase of the base sentence were rejected.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 10 OF 25

In the end, the following sentences were imposed: Antônio Carlos Gomes Dias, 2 years of imprisonment, under an open regime, replaced by two restrictions of rights, and 10 day-fines; Brasil Filho Theodoro Mello de Souza, 2 years of imprisonment, under an open regime, replaced by two restrictions of rights, and 10 day-fines; Evandir Duarte de Aquino, 2 years and 8 months of imprisonment, under an open regime, replaced by two restrictions of rights, in addition to 10 and 13 day-fines; Homero Wagner Fronja, 2 years of imprisonment, under an open regime, replaced by two restrictions of rights, and 10 day-fines; Luiz Guilherme Christino Alho da Silva, 4 years of imprisonment, under an initial open regime, replaced by two restrictions of rights, and 20 day-fines; Mario Hitoshi Neto Takahashi, 4 years and 8 months of imprisonment, under an initial semi-open regime, and 33 day-fines; Ossamu Kaminagakura, 6 years, 2 months, and 20 days of imprisonment, under a semi-open regime, and 29 day-fines; Rony dos Santos Alves, 7 years of imprisonment, under an initial semi-open regime, and 55 day-fines; and Vander Mendes Ferreira, 4 years of imprisonment, under an open regime, and 20 day-fines.

The motions for clarification filed by the present appellant were rejected (pp. 29156-29162).

In his appellate arguments (pp. 29349-29372), the appellant alleges violation of art. 5, XXXIV, “a,” of the Constitution of the Republic, as well as arts. 158-A, 158-B, and 383 of the CPP and arts. 13 and 71 of the Criminal Code. He argues nullity due to withholding, manipulation, or disappearance of evidence in the possession of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, because recordings delivered to Gaeco allegedly had been concealed for years and filed only after the evidentiary phase and final arguments, although referred to in the accusation and used in the decisions, with a break in the chain of custody, prejudice to adversarial proceedings, and violation of the commonality of evidence.

He further alleges violation of art. 13 of the Criminal Code, on the argument that acquittal of the crime of criminal organization eliminated the link used by the indictment to connect the appellant to the remaining facts, without an independent indication of personal conduct, active or omissive, that was causally relevant. From this he derives the theory of objective criminal liability, because the conviction allegedly survived without an individualized description of his contribution to the results attributed in facts 04, 08, and 11.

Regarding fact 11, he alleges violation of art. 383 of the CPP, because the accusatory narrative would correspond, at most, to administrative advocacy under art. 321 of the Criminal Code, as recognized in the judgment, and not to passive corruption under art. 317 of the Criminal Code, which is why the TJPR, in reversing the legal reclassification and convicting him of passive corruption, allegedly broke the correlation between indictment and conviction.

Finally, he alleges violation of art. 71 of the Criminal Code, arguing contradiction in the rejection of continuing crime, because the judgment allegedly recognized similarity of circumstances and manner of execution in order to weigh the facts against the accused but refused to apply continuing crime for sentencing purposes.

In the end, he requests admission and granting of the appeal, with recognition of the nullities, revision of the conviction, or recalculation of the sentence.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 11 OF 25

With counterarguments (pp. 29375-29378), the Special Appeal was denied admission at origin (pp. 29381-29387), followed by the filing of the interlocutory appeal.

Once the proceedings were sent to this Superior Court, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office expressed its opinion in favor of entertaining the appeal and not allowing the Special Appeal to proceed (pp. 31218-31239).

This is the report.

OPINION

I. ADMISSIBILITY

The Special Appeal satisfies the admissibility requirements, notably regarding demonstration of the relevance of the matter, because it arises from a criminal action and falls within the presumptive situations of art. 105, § 3, I, of the Constitution of the Republic, introduced by Constitutional Amendment 125/2022. The prequestioning of the issues related to the defense theory was also established, given the express deliberation of the adjudicating body.

I therefore proceed to consideration of the merits.

II. DELIMITATION OF THE CONTROVERSY

The legal controversy submitted to the STJ revolves around the alleged violation of art. 158-A of the CPP, due to the alleged withholding, manipulation, or late availability of environmental recordings delivered by Júnior Zampar to Gaeco, which, according to the appellant, remained for years outside defense reach and were only filed in the proceedings after the evidentiary phase and final arguments.

It is argued that the appealed judgment improperly rejected nullity by stating that the evidence did not support either the indictment or the conviction, although, in the appellant’s view, the judgment itself recognized that the recording’s content proved facts described in the accusation.

The appellant further argues that the absence of timely and complete access to the material compromised adversarial proceedings, the possibility of requesting expert examination, the production of counterevidence, and defense control over the origin, provenance, storage, possible alteration, and reliability of the evidentiary body.

III. THE EPISTEMIC RELIABILITY OF RECORDED EVIDENCE, THE NEED FOR FULL ACCESS BY THE DEFENSE, AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF FORMAL ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FACE OF LATE AND INCOMPLETE FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDINGS

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 12 OF 25

Regarding the defense theory, the court of origin, as indicated in the excerpt from the judgment, understood that there had been no nullity due to omission or manipulation of evidence, nor any break in the chain of custody, because the recordings were filed before the conviction, a period was opened to supplement final arguments, the essential content was already known to the defense, and no concrete prejudice to the accused had been demonstrated (pp. 28715-28720):

> “And thus, the alleged prejudice is not seen.

With regard to omission and/or manipulation of the evidence, they fare no better.

When examining the motions for clarification filed by Júlio Cardoso, José Castro Neto, Brasil Mello, Mario Takahashi, Rony Alves, and Luiz Guilherme Alho, the Judge stated that:

[The source at this point contains the fragment:] ‘the indictment is based on the facts proven there and is entirely well-founded.’

‘Regarding the alleged omission concerning nullity due to the failure to make available the environmental recording of Júnior Custódio Zampar with Brasil Filho Theodoro Mello:

Defendant Mário Hitoshi Neto Takahashi argued that there was no reasoning for the rejection of the nullity theory relating to the failure to make available the environmental recording of Júnior Custódio Zampar with Brasil Filho Theodoro Mello.

The issue was addressed in the conviction judgment, together with the decisions at docket entries 2520.1 and 2628.1, and it was understood that there was no irregular conduct by the prosecuting body.

Since there was no irregularity, obviously there is no question of selectivity by the prosecuting body in the management of evidence or a break in chain of custody, so there is no prejudice to the defense, which was able to know the terms of the accusation clearly, broadly, and objectively.

Thus, there is no omission, which is why I reject the motions for clarification on this point.’

The decision at docket entry 2628.1 states:

‘The Public Prosecutor’s Office reported that all documents from the Criminal Investigative Proceeding were digitized and inserted into the Projudi System (docket entry 2566.1), and that it was able to locate the media originating from environmental recordings made by JÚNIOR CUSTÓDIO ZAMPAR stored in the GAECO database; that the environmental recordings made by JÚNIOR before March 16, 2017 allegedly had not been used to form the opinio delicti; that their content had already been reproduced in the proceedings; that data obtained from the breach of confidentiality had not been used and that those already reported were contained in Criminal Investigative Proceeding No. MPPR-0078.18.000668-0 (see media attached to docket entry 2256.10), known to defendants Vander, Ossamu, and his son Fabrício Kaminagakura; and, finally, that there was no prejudice to the defense due to the untimely filing of the testimony of witness Roraima.

I decide.

With regard to the filing of audios captured by Júnior Custódio Zampar, in light of the information provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, I understand that the situation has been cured, authorizing continuation of the proceeding and analysis of the preliminary requests, as observed in the decision (docket entry 2520.1).’

The recordings were attached at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7, therefore before the conviction judgment, and, although this occurred after the presentation of final arguments, a period was opened to permit supplementation of the submission, allowing use of the content of the evidence belatedly filed in the proceedings, which made possible adversarial proceedings and full defense in their entirety.

It should be emphasized that, contrary to what was alleged, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not intentionally omit or manipulate evidence for the purpose of deliberately prejudicing the defendants and forcing a conviction based upon incomplete or untrue elements.

First, it must be said that the cited recordings did not support the indictment and also were not used in forming the judge’s conviction, as...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 13 OF 25

> “...can be seen from the conviction decision and reaffirmed in the information provided at docket entry 80.1. Moreover, its contents were explained by Júnior Zampier both in the extrajudicial and judicial phases.

Then, when analyzing the full content of the recording at docket entry 2566.5, it can be seen that the supposedly ‘hidden’ part, which would benefit the accused, is not capable of reversing the outcome of the proceeding, because continuation of the conversation demonstrates that the indictment is based on the facts proven there and is entirely well-founded.

Let us see.

In excerpts from the conversation, the following dialogue appears, highlighted by defense counsel:

00:05:20 – Brasil: I have a guy (Luiz Guilherme Alho) who is doing it for me. He can take it on and do it for you. Is there a risk? There is. What did he charge us? He charged sixty thousand and two lots. He could do it for a hundred thousand in cash, understand? But he preferred to change it. Our zoning is an area...

Júnior: Are you alert to it? But who’s going to take it? Do you have to pay this guy so that he can settle things with the council members? How does it work?

Brasil: No, no. There’s no arrangement with council members. The guys nowadays are all, all...

Júnior: All alert?

Brasil: All alert. They aren’t asking for anything. Understand? What does he have to do to defend it? He has to make a project. He has to make an EIV. The EIV is the Neighborhood Impact Study; without that you don’t get through anywhere. It doesn’t even begin to move forward. And there is his defense work. Creating the EIV, his work developing that EIV and entering the Municipality, making the defense before the Municipality and making the defense before the City Council, why this is being done.

(Inaudible) with several meetings at IPPUL, with Ossamu, now there’s some Socorro who is there, who came from Maringá, was from here, went to Maringá and came back, understand? So there are various steps that have to be taken within City Hall and afterward he forwards the project with the Municipality’s approval, understand? It goes to the City Council, they will analyze it, he will have to go there to debate it with the council members because...

00:05:35 – There’s no arrangement with council members.

00:05:42 – (council members) are not asking for anything.

00:16:05 – He (Luiz Alho) doesn’t negotiate any bribe.

00:16:10 – If we want to help, we’re free to do so; if they don’t ask, even better.

00:17:28 – (the project) could go wrong.

00:17:40 – Takahashi talks about legality.”

However, later in the conversation, it is said:

“There’s a process, there’s a guy, Takahashi and Rony, they’re going to head it there, for those two, understand? An informal conversation. We’re going to have to slip something [...] There for those two you’ll have to give around 10 grand, 20 grand, each one, for what? For them to head it there.

Júnior: To Takahashi and Rony?

That’s it.

Júnior: This change here, who filed it was Rony.

What did they do, a project for Paysage, in the south zone, they made a change there, for the Paysage people, at the time they wanted to take a big bite out of Paysage, and Rony had already given a price agreed here, it was 110 grand that he asked for, because there were 11 council members whose votes were needed, he said, ‘no, it was settled for 30 grand,’ and Paysage knew about that.

Júnior: Paid Rony?

For Rony to settle with the guys there, during campaign season the guys took it and changed the zoning there. [...]

It’s always Takahashi and Rony, they go there and ask for money and they pay, from what we talked about with Alphaville [...] it’s not the company’s profile to pay bribes. [...]

He says the following, that they don’t negotiate any bribe, but if we want to help with something, we’re free to help; if we want to help, surely they’ll want to ask for something, then we’ll see; if they don’t ask, better, great; if they ask, you have to be prepared, understand? Now he isn’t doing anything wrong, he’s following the legal procedure.

[...] What Rony said to me: ‘Brasil, I’m not going to ask you for anything; on the day of my campaign, will you help me?’ I said I’ll help. That’s what he asked me one day. You come here, I have to pay for gasoline, yes, I’ll pay; I have to make leaflets, I’ll do it; that’s what he asked, to help him on campaign day. [...]

Now if Rony and the thingamajig come here and say, ‘in my campaign, Rony wants to run for state representative, help me?’...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 14 OF 25

> “...I’ll help, no problem, I’ll pay for gasoline, pay for something, that’s the message I gave Luiz Guilherme to give to both of them.”

In other words, there are no elements capable of demonstrating the innocence of those involved.

It should be emphasized that the main and crucial point of the evidence was already known to the lawyers from the beginning, as explained by the Parquet, because its contents were reproduced in Júnior Zampar’s extrajudicial testimony at docket entry 34.553 and could, at all times, be questioned by defense counsel, particularly because the witness testified in court. Everything revealed there could be the subject of questions, clarification, and rebuttal by the accused, because it refers, in short, to the well-explained accusation, known by the defendants, of receiving bribes for alteration of zoning.

It should be emphasized that revealing the entire contents is even detrimental to the defendants, since it strongly and forcefully reveals the criminal scheme, perhaps explaining the persistent claim of nullity.

Accordingly, it should be recalled, as previously stated, that only a proceeding that causes proven prejudice to the parties is null, which is not seen in the case at hand, in which, moreover, the filing of the evidence ‘hidden’ by the Public Prosecutor’s Office only strengthened and proved its accusations.

Regarding the recordings at docket entries 2566.6 and 2566.7, at no point were the conversations contained therein cited during the course of the proceeding and, therefore, whether they were filed or not is irrelevant, there likewise being no prejudice to the defense.

Finally, there is no indication of any adulteration of the videos that could justify expert examination, nor is it understood that failure to seize the recording device, which would have been Junior Zampier’s cell phone, constitutes nullity; moreover, the witness, who appears as one of the interlocutors, confirmed the veracity of the recording and what was discussed, and no break in chain of custody is seen by reason of material involving facts later proven by other means not having been attached earlier.”

Indeed, the appealed judgment records that the defense raised nullity due to the failure to provide an environmental recording made by Júnior Custódio Zampar in a dialogue with Brasil Filho Theodoro Mello.

The defense allegation, as summarized by the local Court, was not limited to the physical absence of a file from the proceedings, but reached the possibility of evidentiary omission, prior selection of collected material, or break in chain of custody.

The judgment also records that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, when digitizing and filing in Projudi the documents from the Criminal Investigative Proceeding, located in the Gaeco database media originating from environmental recordings made by Júnior Custódio Zampar. At the same time, it stated that recordings prior to March 16, 2017 had not been used to form the opinio delicti.

That assertion does not appear sufficient, by itself, to resolve the controversy. If the material existed, was stored in the database of an investigative body, and was later located by the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself, the circumstance that it was not used in forming the indictment does not eliminate the defense’s interest in examining it.

The defense does not have an interest only in the evidence chosen by the prosecution to support the accusation. It may have, with equal or greater reason, an interest in material not selected, precisely because such material could contain elements of contextualization, contradiction, or weakening of the prosecution’s hypothesis.

The discussion, therefore, is not resolved by declaring that the earlier recordings did not form part of the opinio delicti. The legal question is whether the evidentiary body was made available to the defense in...

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 15 OF 25

...its entirety, or whether the prosecuting body, even without an intention to conceal, ultimately submitted to adversarial proceedings only the segment it regarded as relevant.

With recorded evidence, especially when preserved within a State investigative structure, the reliability of the material does not depend merely upon knowing whether a particular file was or was not mentioned in the indictment. It also depends upon the defense being able to verify continuity of the conversation, the context in which the statements were produced, the existence of other excerpts, and the criterion by which part of the material was incorporated into the proceedings and part was not.

Indeed, chain of custody of digital evidence is not exhausted by preservation of integrity understood as absence of adulteration of the content. It also involves the integrality of the corpus delicti, that is, preservation of the evidentiary set in a complete and contextualized manner subject to control by the parties.

A piece of evidence may show no sign of adulteration and nevertheless be procedurally problematic if it reaches adversarial proceedings as a fragment of a broader evidentiary body whose completeness has not been demonstrated.

In the precedent established by the Fifth Panel in AgRg no RHC No. 184.003/SP, the prevailing opinion, followed by a majority of the panel, held that the inaccessibility of part of the material, together with the absence of the original hard drive, compromised the possibility of independent inspection of the authenticity of the traces, an element deemed indispensable to the reliability of digital evidence, as can be seen from the headnote of the precedent below:

> “CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW. INTERNAL APPEAL. DIGITAL EVIDENCE. CHAIN OF CUSTODY. INADMISSIBILITY. RELIEF GRANTED.

I. CASE UNDER EXAMINATION

1. Internal appeal filed against a single-Justice decision that denied an ordinary appeal in habeas corpus seeking a declaration of inadmissibility of digital evidence obtained through search and seizure due to defects in obtaining the files.

2. The defense alleges deficiencies in documentation of procedures for handling digital evidence and compromise of evidentiary integrity because part of the files is inaccessible.

3. The court of first instance denied the request for production of additional evidence to clarify the reliability and integrity of the electronic data.

II. ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION

4. The issue under discussion consists in determining whether digital evidence obtained through search and seizure, with part of the files corrupted and inaccessible, may be admitted in court.

III. REASONS FOR DECIDING

6. The mere fact that there is a record of the hashes of files extracted from seized electronic devices does not, by itself, prove the integrity of the digital evidence. For that purpose, it would be necessary to compare the hashes of the original files with those of the files made available by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was not done at origin.

7. As recognized by the trial court, the local Court, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, part of the electronic files was corrupted while under State custody due to ‘some type of error’ (the Parquet’s words), and it is not known when or how this occurred. Nor is it known what the contents of the corrupted files were, which compromises the integrality of the evidence and prevents the defense from accessing potentially relevant information.”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 16 OF 25

> “8. STJ case law, in similar cases, determines the inadmissibility of incomplete evidence, in observance of the principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense and of the reliability of the corpus-delicti records themselves.

IV. DISPOSITION AND HOLDING

9. Internal appeal granted to declare inadmissible the digital evidence obtained in the precautionary measure, as well as all evidence derived therefrom.

Holding: ‘1. Digital evidence must be complete and intact in order to be admitted in court. 2. Corruption of part of the files compromises the integrality of the evidence, making its use impossible.’

Relevant provisions cited: CPP, arts. 157, § 1, and 158.

Relevant case law cited: STJ, HC 160.662/RJ, Reporting Justice Assusete Magalhães, Sixth Panel, decided 02/18/2014; STJ, AgRg no RHC 143.169/RJ, Justice writing for the judgment Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, decided 02/07/2023.”

(AgRg no RHC No. 184.003/SP, Reporting Justice Daniela Teixeira, Justice writing for the judgment Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, decided 12/10/2024, DJEN 12/26/2024.)

It is worth recalling that the factual correctness of a judicial decision depends, to a large extent, upon the quantity, completeness, and quality of the evidence submitted to the judge’s assessment.

When the evidentiary body is fragmented or incomplete, the possibility of reliable reconstruction of the facts decreases and, consequently, the risk of judicial error increases.

That is why the requirement of integrality of digital evidence is not confused with formalism. On the contrary, it constitutes a condition for the defense to be able to control the origin, content, and reliability of the material used against the accused.

At this point, the prevailing opinion in RHC No. 184.003/SP reaffirms that the legitimacy of criminal proceedings depends not merely upon the existence of evidence, but upon the quality of the evidentiary body supporting the State’s punitive claim.

Furthermore, the same concern with evidentiary integrality was reaffirmed in a more recent judgment of the Sixth Panel, in RHC No. 218.358/PI, concerning a criminal action for homicide arising from an automobile collision.

In that case, the prosecution relied upon expert reports prepared from images captured by security cameras. However, the raw data was lost, with only the report produced from it remaining in the proceedings.

Because defense control over the primary evidentiary source had become impossible, the Court recognized the inadmissibility both of the images and of the expert reports derived from them.

In this regard:

> “ORDINARY APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS. NULLITY OF THE JUDGMENT THAT DECIDED THE MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AT ORIGIN. ABSENCE OF OMISSION. MERE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDGMENT. FAILURE TO PROVIDE JUDICIAL RELIEF NOT CHARACTERIZED. LOSS OF MEDIA CONTAINING RECORDINGS AND FORENSIC SIMULATIONS. BREAK IN CHAIN OF CUSTODY ESTABLISHED. NULLITY OF THE RESPECTIVE EXPERT REPORTS. REMOVAL FROM THE PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED.

1. The issue now debated was addressed, although the court of origin decided contrary to the defense. This is not an omission, but rather disagreement with the outcome of the judgment, which does not constitute failure to provide judicial relief.

2. Chain of custody constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of the validity of criminal evidence and is currently expressly provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, following enactment of Law No. 13,964/2019 (Anti-Crime Package), which introduced arts. 158-A through 158-F. The central objective of this regulation was to ensure authenticity...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 17 OF 25

> “...integrity and reliability of evidence, from the moment of its collection until its final disposal, through adoption of a standardized procedure for documentation, control, and traceability.

3. A break in chain of custody is characterized by occurrence of failures in one or more links in the procedure for tracing, controlling, and preserving evidence — whether physical or digital — directly compromising its integrity, authenticity, and/or reliability and potentially resulting in its exclusion from the proceeding.

4. Although the record states that the reports were in fact produced by official experts, with hash algorithms, and that links were provided to access the images and videos, the judgment expressly cites the existence of possible damage to the CDs accompanying the forensic examinations (p. 217), leading to the conclusion that links inaccessible to the defense were provided.

5. The particularity of the present case does not lie in the existence of possible adulteration or manipulation of the evidence sufficient to invalidate it, since there are no data indicating such defects, but rather in the absence of the original elements that were lost after the respective reports were properly prepared and incorporated into the proceedings.

6. The loss of the examined material demonstrates the absence of adequate storage and preservation of the evidence, preventing access to the entirety of the content used in preparation of the expert reports, which may constitute, in light of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a procedural defect.

The factual and legal consequences of this irregularity in the specific case must therefore be evaluated, especially regarding its potential to violate fundamental rights and guarantees.

7. The absence of the entirety of the recordings and images relating to the day of the accident, as well as the simulations performed, compromised the adequate technical analysis necessary for possible production of counterevidence. The impossibility of accessing the original sources weakened, in the case, the attempt to contest or supplement the expert work, resulting in ineffective adversarial proceedings, violation of full defense, and a break in equality of arms between the parties.

8. Once a failure in storage of media and recordings is established, I recognize the break in chain of custody and the consequent nullity of the respective expert reports, DEMAND No. 00026275-35 and DEMAND No. 00026492-09, which must be removed from the proceedings.

9. Ordinary appeal partially granted to declare the nullity of the expert reports and order their removal from the proceedings.”

(RHC No. 218.358/PI, Reporting Justice Sebastião Reis Júnior, Sixth Panel, decided 11/04/2025, DJEN 11/11/2025.)

Another point deserves attention. The court of origin recorded that the recordings were filed at docket entries 2566.5 through 2566.7 before the conviction judgment, although after submission of final arguments, and that a period was reopened for supplementation of the defense submission.

From those circumstances, it understood adversarial proceedings and full defense to have been preserved.

The problem is determining whether the possibility of a subsequent submission, considered in isolation, is sufficient to demonstrate that the defense had useful access to the evidentiary material.

In principle, reopening the period permits the defense to comment on the filed documents. However, when that occurred, its final submission had already been prepared without knowledge of the recordings.

There is a difference between permitting supplementation and ensuring that evidence is available at the moment when defense strategy is defined.

The subsequent measure may attenuate the effects of late filing, but it does not necessarily restore all the possibilities that would have resulted from prior examination of the complete body of conversations.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 18 OF 25

This difference becomes clearer when the characteristics of the evidence are considered.

Analysis of environmental recordings may require listening to the complete files, comparing different passages, verifying continuity of the conversations, comparison with testimony, and reconstruction of the context in which particular statements were made.

It therefore is not material whose content can adequately be understood from isolated excerpts or through a simple supplemental reading of final arguments.

The exercise of adversarial proceedings, in this case, also depends upon the conditions under which the defense was able to examine the evidentiary source.

The absence of intent or deliberate purpose by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, by itself, does not resolve the controversy.

Chain of custody is intended not only to prevent intentional adulterations, but also to ensure traceability, integrity, and completeness of evidentiary material, so that possible losses, gaps, documentation failures, or selections not capable of being controlled do not compromise its reliability.

The issue, therefore, is not properly one of discovering whether there was an intention to conceal particular content.

What matters is determining whether the State, after capturing or maintaining the recordings under its availability, preserved the evidentiary body and presented it in a manner that permitted the defense to verify its integrality.

Even good-faith conduct does not eliminate the possibility that part of the material was lost, discarded, separated, or simply not submitted to defense control.

The assertion that the recordings were not used in the judgment also fails to reach the central point of the controversy.

The relevance of evidence is not limited to its direct use as the basis of conviction.

Particular material may serve to modify the context in which the remaining evidence is understood, reveal the incompleteness of a narrative, or permit the defense to question the selection made by the prosecution.

For that reason, the declaration that the files did not influence the judicial conviction does not make the manner in which they were preserved and made available irrelevant.

The conclusion that no prejudice existed therefore depended upon an examination that does not appear in the appealed judgment.

It would have been necessary to clarify whether the defense received all existing recordings, whether it had conditions to examine them in their entirety, and whether the period granted allowed them to be confronted with the evidence already produced.

Without this information, it is impossible to determine the correspondence between the material stored in the Gaeco database, that selected by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, that filed in the proceedings, and that effectively submitted to adversarial proceedings.

The deficiency in reasoning lies precisely at that point, because the appealed judgment considered sufficient the fact that the recordings were not used in the indictment and judgment, the existence of other corroborating elements, and the granting of a period for defense supplementation.

Those data may be relevant, but they do not answer the allegation that the defense did not know the extent of the evidentiary body and could not verify whether the material presented corresponded to the entirety of the evidence collected.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 19 OF 25

Selection by the prosecution, even if not accompanied by bad faith, does not substitute for defense examination of the evidentiary source.

If the recordings were under State custody or availability, conditions had to be ensured so that their integrity and completeness could be verified.

Otherwise, the proceeding begins to work with an excerpt whose correspondence with the original evidentiary body is known only by the body responsible for its selection.

It is not asserted, by this, that the content not filed or presented late would necessarily favor the accused.

The difficulty arises earlier: without complete and timely access, the defense was prevented from verifying that possibility.

The uncertainty resulting from the manner in which the evidence was collected, preserved, and selected cannot be resolved to the detriment of the party that had no control over those activities.

IV. PROCEDURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEFECT: NULLITY FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION

Once the absence of full and timely access to environmental recordings maintained under State custody is recognized, the procedural consequence cannot be limited to reopening a period merely to supplement final arguments.

The irregularity is not restricted to the moment when the material was finally filed in the proceedings.

The defect is earlier, because the defense passed through the initial pleading stage and the entire evidentiary phase without possessing the entirety of the evidentiary body necessary to define its strategy, formulate requests, confront witnesses, and potentially conduct technical control of the recorded evidence.

The appealed judgment, by stating that the recordings were filed before judgment and that a period was opened to supplement the defense submission, treated adversarial proceedings as a formal opportunity for later comment.

That understanding, however, does not restore the prejudice caused by deprivation of access at a procedurally useful time.

The defense does not have only the right to comment upon the evidence after the evidentiary phase has ended. It has the right to know it at an adequate time in order to guide its procedural actions, select its theories, request investigative measures, formulate questions, produce counterevidence, and evaluate the need for expert examination.

The response to the accusation is the first moment in which technical defense is structured in criminal procedure. It is there that the accused party may raise preliminary matters, identify evidence, formulate requests, and establish the line of defense that will guide the evidentiary phase. If, at that moment, the defense does not know the entirety of the environmental recordings that were under State control, its activity is already conditioned by an informational asymmetry incompatible with substantive adversarial proceedings.

The evidentiary phase is also compromised.

Listening to the recordings in their entirety could influence the manner of questioning witnesses, the need to confront testimony with audio, the formulation of questions about context, continuity of the conversation, origin of the file, manner of storage, preservation of the media, and possible existence of other...

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 20 OF 25

...excerpts and criteria for selection of the material incorporated into the proceedings.

The defense, deprived of those elements, was unable to exercise effective control over the evidence at the moment when that control would have had real utility.

For that reason, the later reopening of a period to supplement final arguments does not undo the prejudice.

That measure permits only a late reaction to evidence that should have guided the entire course of the defense.

Final supplementation does not substitute for a response to the accusation prepared with prior knowledge of the evidentiary body, nor does it reproduce evidentiary opportunities already consumed.

Adversarial proceedings exercised only at the end of the procedure are reduced to a reactive submission incapable of restoring the equality of arms affected from the beginning.

The decision rendered in HC No. 1.047.527/TO, Reporting Justice Carlos Pires Brandão, decided by the Sixth Panel, reinforces this conclusion.

In that case, although the court of origin had ordered full filing of the missing evidence and reopening of a period for defense submissions pursuant to art. 402 of the CPP, the STJ regarded that measure as insufficient.

It was understood that the prejudice had already materialized because the response to the accusation had been submitted and the evidentiary phase had been followed without the defense having full access to the evidentiary elements.

That understanding can be extracted from the headnote of the precedent:

> “CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW. INTERNAL APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS. CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION AND EMBEZZLEMENT. FULL ACCESS TO DOCUMENTED EVIDENTIARY ELEMENTS. RESTRICTION OF DEFENSE. PRECLUSION. ART. 402 OF THE CPP. APPEAL DENIED.

I. Case under examination

1. Internal appeal filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office against a single-Justice decision rendered in habeas corpus that granted relief to annul all procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, with determination that a new defense period be opened for its submission.

2. Patient charged, together with co-defendants, with the alleged commission of the crimes provided in art. 2, § 4, II, of Law No. 12,850/2013 and art. 312 of the Criminal Code, within the scope of the so-called ‘Operation Sempiternus,’ instituted to investigate alleged diversion of public resources from the Municipal Health Fund of Araguaína/TO, using funds from the Unified Health System.

3. In a prior habeas corpus, the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region recognized an irregularity in the absence of full availability of the evidentiary body...”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 21 OF 25

> “...mentioned in the indictment (bank information, contents of seized electronic devices, and documents related to Technical Note No. 306/2020 of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union) and ordered filing of the precautionary proceedings for breach of bank confidentiality and search and seizure, as well as reopening of a period pursuant to art. 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a defense submission concerning possible supplemental investigative measures, with possibility of repetition of procedural acts if necessary, while nevertheless denying annulment of the proceedings from the response to the accusation on the ground of preclusion.

4. In a new habeas corpus, this Superior Court concluded that late access to the evidentiary elements irreversibly compromised formulation of the response to the accusation and conduct of the defense strategy, annulling the procedural acts from the response to the accusation onward and ordering that a new period be opened for the defense.

The appellant argues that there was no intentional or selective suppression of evidence, that preclusion applies to a nullity not raised at the first opportunity, and that the measure adopted pursuant to art. 402 of the CPP was sufficient to cure any prejudice, also invoking the principle pas de nullité sans grief.

II. Issue under discussion

5. There are four issues under discussion: (i) whether the absence of full and timely defense access to evidentiary elements already documented and used to support the indictment constitutes restriction of defense capable of resulting in nullity of procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward; (ii) whether the allegation of nullity due to restriction of defense, based on lack of full access to evidence before the response to the accusation, would be subject to preclusion when not raised at the first procedural opportunity, even though the defect compromised the initial exercise of technical defense itself; (iii) whether reopening a period for requests for supplemental investigative measures pursuant to art. 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient to cure the prejudice resulting from submission of the response to the accusation and participation in the criminal evidentiary phase without full access to the evidentiary body already produced and documented; and (iv) whether, in light of the principle pas de nullité sans grief, concrete prejudice sufficient to justify declaration of nullity of procedural acts subsequent to the response to the accusation was demonstrated.

III. Reasons for deciding

6. The defense did not have full access, at an appropriate time, to the evidentiary body already documented that supported the criminal accusation, a circumstance constituting an objective defect capable of compromising adversarial proceedings, full defense, and equality of arms, independently of proof of a deliberate intention by the prosecution to conceal informational elements.

7. The case law of the Superior Court of Justice holds that, once the informational elements collected in the investigation have been formalized and documented, broad defense access to that material must be ensured, and the prosecuting body may not select, from among the collected elements, those that will be made available to the defense, under penalty of nullity of the proceeding and the need to reopen the period for the response to the accusation (RHC No. 114.683/RJ; HC No. 452.992/SP).

8. Application of preclusion regarding nullity presupposes that the defect did not substantially compromise the initial exercise of technical defense itself; where it is demonstrated that the absence of full access to the evidence affected preparation of the response to the accusation and prevented full exercise of the powers provided in art. 396-A of the CPP, there is no question of validation of the defect through preclusion, in accordance with the understanding established in RHC No. 114.683/RJ and AgRg no AgRg no HC No. 949.358/SP.

9. Reopening a period pursuant to art. 402 of the CPP, intended to supplement the evidentiary phase, does not restore the prejudice already materialized at the response-to-the-accusation stage, because this is the proper moment to raise preliminary matters, articulate defense theories, attach documents, specify evidence, and list witnesses, so that defense activity without full knowledge of the informational elements supporting the indictment characterizes an original compromise of equality of arms.

10. The principle pas de nullité sans grief does not prevent recognition of nullity, because the prejudice is concrete and arises from the impossibility of the defense structuring the response to the accusation on an informed basis and guiding its actions in the criminal evidentiary phase, constituting a practical and verifiable defect with direct impact upon the exercise of full defense.

11. The orientation of this Superior Court is therefore maintained to the effect that full and timely defense access to already-documented evidentiary elements constitutes an essential guarantee of adversarial proceedings, requiring, when it is frustrated with repercussions upon the response to the accusation and development of the evidentiary phase, invalidation of subsequent procedural acts.

IV. Disposition

12. Judgment Result: The internal appeal is denied, maintaining the habeas corpus relief to annul procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward and to order the opening of a new defense period.

Relevant provisions cited: CPP, arts. 396-A, 402, and 563; Law No. 12,850/2013, art. 2, § 4, II; Criminal Code, art. 312.”

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 22 OF 25

> Relevant case law cited: STJ, RHC No. 114.683/RJ, Reporting Justice Rogerio Schietti Cruz, Sixth Panel, decided 04/13/2021, DJe 04/19/2021; STJ, HC No. 452.992/SP, Reporting Justice Laurita Vaz, Sixth Panel, decided 10/13/2020, DJe 10/23/2020; STJ, AgRg no AgRg no HC No. 949.358/SP, Reporting Justice Daniela Teixeira, Fifth Panel, decided 02/26/2025, DJEN 03/05/2025.”

(AgRg no HC No. 1.047.527/TO, Reporting Justice Carlos Pires Brandão, Sixth Panel, decided 05/13/2026, DJEN of 05/19/2025.)

Translator’s note: the date “DJEN of 05/19/2025” appears exactly that way in the official STJ judgment, although the cited judgment date is May 13, 2026. It is preserved here without silent correction.

The reasoning is directly applicable to the present case.

The stage under art. 402 of the CPP — and, with even greater reason, the mere supplementation of final arguments — cannot function as a substitute for the response to the accusation or for the evidentiary phase itself.

It is a stage intended for supplemental investigative measures arising during the course of the evidentiary phase, not to correct the prior failure to make available an evidentiary body that already existed and was maintained under State custody.

The right of access reaches the already-documented evidentiary body related to the exercise of defense, precisely so that the accused party may verify whether the prosecution’s narrative was constructed from a partial, incomplete, or decontextualized selection of the evidentiary source.

The prejudice, in that case, is inherent in the loss of procedural opportunities connected to timely knowledge of the evidence.

The defense submitted the response to the accusation, participated in the evidentiary phase, and formulated final arguments without being able fully to examine the environmental recordings maintained in the Gaeco database.

Even though the material was filed before the judgment, late availability does not restore the possibility of redesigning the initial strategy, timely requesting evidence, guiding oral evidence, or submitting the primary source to technical control before consolidation of the evidentiary activity.

The appropriate procedural solution, therefore, is annulment of the acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, with reopening of the corresponding period after full availability of the recordings, corresponding raw data, and elements necessary to verify their origin, custody, completeness, authenticity, and reliability.

From that point onward, the subsequent evidentiary acts must be renewed to the extent necessary for the effective exercise of adversarial proceedings and full defense.

V. DISPOSITION

In view of the foregoing, once the defect arising from the absence of full and timely access to the environmental recordings is recognized, the appeal must be entertained in order partially to grant the Special Appeal so as to declare null the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward, followed by renewal of the subsequent evidentiary acts affected by the recognized informational asymmetry.

For the time being, consideration of the remaining points raised in the appellant’s Special Appeal is rendered moot.

For the same reasons, consideration of the Special Appeals filed by the co-defendants is also rendered moot...

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 23 OF 25

...by reason of extension of the effects of this decision (pp. 29424-29466, 29570-29698, and 30763-30784).

This is my vote.

Electronic document VDA57778281 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO NAVARRO RIBEIRO DANTAS. Signed on: 06/18/2026 14:41:16.

Document Control Code: a052698f-101d-419c-8120-5fb601a29519.

---

PAGE 24 OF 25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE — S.T.J.

Page ______

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

FIFTH PANEL

Registry Number: 2025/0322817-9

ELECTRONIC PROCEEDING: AREsp 3.028.845 / PR

CRIMINAL MATTER

Origin Numbers:

00042248820188160014

00076536320188160014

00134530920178160014

00213596920258160014

00214445520258160014

00228268320258160014

00233196020258160014

00797422120178160014

134530920178160014

13453092017816001400213596920258160014

213596920258160014

214445520258160014

228268320258160014

233196020258160014

42248820188160014

76536320188160014

797422120178160014

DOCKET: 06/16/2026

DECIDED: 06/16/2026

Reporting Justice

The Honorable Justice RIBEIRO DANTAS

President of the Session

The Honorable Justice REYNALDO SOARES DA FONSECA

Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic

The Honorable Dr. ANTÔNIO AUGUSTO BRANDÃO DE ARAS

Secretary

Me. MARCELO PEREIRA CRUVINEL

DOCKETING

APPELLANT: MARIO HITOSHI NETO TAKAHASHI

ATTORNEYS: MICHEL NEME NETO - PR044283

ANDERSON FELIPE MARIANO - PR065667

APPELLANT: OSSAMU KAMINAGAKURA

ATTORNEYS: ANTÔNIO BACCARIN - PR013380

GABRIEL BERTIN DE ALMEIDA - PR024837

FLÁVIO HENRIQUE CAETANO DE PAULA - PR038441

FRANCISCO LUÍS HIPÓLITO GALLI - PR038735

RODOLFO LUIZ BRESSAN SPIGAI - PR044950

ATTORNEY: CLAUDIA DA ROCHA - PR084637

ATTORNEY: ANA BEATRIZ DA LUZ - PR088352

ATTORNEY: LUIZA RADIGONDA LOPES - PR111795

APPELLANT: LUIZ GUILHERME CHRISTINO ALHO DA SILVA

ATTORNEYS: FRANCISCO DE ASSIS DO REGO MONTEIRO ROCHA JUNIOR - PR029071

JOÃO RAFAEL DE OLIVEIRA - PR056722

ATTORNEY: LUCIANA GABARDO - PR078507

ATTORNEY: HELLEN LUANA DE SOUZA - PR116557

APPELLANT: RONY DOS SANTOS ALVES

ATTORNEY: MAURÍCIO DE OLIVEIRA CARNEIRO - PR030485

APPELLEE: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE STATE OF PARANÁ

CO-DEFENDANT: EVANDIR DUARTE DE AQUINO

CO-DEFENDANT: CLEUBER MORAES BRITO

CO-DEFENDANT: IGNES DEQUECH ALVARES

CO-DEFENDANT: HOMERO WAGNER FRONJA

CO-DEFENDANT: VANDER MENDES FERREIRA

CO-DEFENDANT: BRASIL FILHO THEODORO MELLO DE SOUZA

CO-DEFENDANT: JOSÉ DE LIMA CASTRO NETO

CO-DEFENDANT: ANTONIO CARLOS GOMES DIAS

CO-DEFENDANT: JULIO CESAR CARDOSO

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW — Crimes provided for in the Criminal Organization Law — Promotion,

C542605449524407830560@ 2025/0322817-9 - AREsp 3028845

Electronic document VDA57732858 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO PEREIRA CRUVINEL, FIFTH PANEL. Signed on: 06/17/2026 16:57:41.

Document Control Code: E715C408-9BFC-4C1A-9A3B-C5D072FA04D9.

---

PAGE 25 OF 25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE — S.T.J.

Page ______

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

FIFTH PANEL

Registry Number: 2025/0322817-9

ELECTRONIC PROCEEDING: AREsp 3.028.845 / PR

CRIMINAL MATTER

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW — Crimes provided for in the Criminal Organization Law — promotion, financing, or participation in a Criminal Organization.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the distinguished FIFTH PANEL, upon examining the above-captioned proceeding at the session held on this date, rendered the following decision:

“The Panel, unanimously, entertained the appeal and partially granted the Special Appeal, in accordance with the opinion of the Reporting Justice.”

Justices Joel Ilan Paciornik, Messod Azulay Neto, Maria Marluce Caldas, and Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca voted with the Reporting Justice.

C542605449524407830560@ 2025/0322817-9 - AREsp 3028845

Electronic document VDA57732858 electronically signed pursuant to Art. 1, § 2, item III, of Law 11,419/2006.

Signatory: MARCELO PEREIRA CRUVINEL, FIFTH PANEL. Signed on: 06/17/2026 16:57:41.

Document Control Code: E715C408-9BFC-4C1A-9A3B-C5D072FA04D9.

---

END OF THE COMPLETE 25-PAGE JUDGMENT

---

APPENDIX III — OFFICIAL STJ JUDGMENT VIDEO AND COMPLETE SESSION INDEX

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice — Fifth Panel — June 16, 2026

Official video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYSvUDXc5A [2]

Case Timer

0:00:00 — Start of Broadcast

0:15:09 — Start of Session

0:19:55 — Approval of the List

0:20:23 — AgRg no HC 985.389/GO, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik; Opinion after Request for Review (Voto-Vista): Messod Azulay Neto

0:30:44 — AgRg no HC 1.054.198/SP, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto; Opinion after Request for Review (Voto-Vista): Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:39:26 — EDcl no AgRg no AREsp 3.148.273/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:39:59 — EDcl no AgRg no AREsp 3.161.955/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:40:15 — AgRg no AREsp 3.229.107/MG, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:40:31 — EDcl no AgRg no HC 1.086.075/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:40:43 — AgRg no AREsp 2.763.474/MG, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:40:58 — AgRg no AREsp 3.182.843/MS, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik

0:41:15 — EDcl no AgRg nos EDcl no REsp 2.197.855/SP, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik

0:41:40 — AgRg no AREsp 2.682.877/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:41:55 — AgRg no HC 1.091.589/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:42:12 — EDcl no AgRg no HC 1.038.608/SP, Reporting Justice: Ribeiro Dantas

0:42:31 — EDcl no AgRg no REsp 2.172.255/MG, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

0:42:52 — AgRg nos EDcl no AREsp 1.769.013/SP, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

0:43:15 — AgRg no AREsp 2.452.120/SP, Reporting Justice: Ribeiro Dantas

0:43:36 — EDcl no AgRg no AREsp 3.144.274/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:44:14 — EDcl no AgRg no AREsp 3.208.363/AC, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik

0:44:15 — AgRg no AREsp 3.105.145/MG, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

0:44:31 — AgRg no AREsp 3.130.722/DF, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

0:44:48 — AgRg no AREsp 2.838.235/GO, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:45:08 — AgRg no AREsp 3.199.017/MT, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:45:32 — AgRg no AREsp 3.006.367/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:45:46 — AgRg no AREsp 3.192.883/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:46:07 — AREsp 3.028.845/PR, Reporting Justice: Ribeiro Dantas

0:47:22 — AgRg no AREsp 2.519.095/SP, Reporting Justice: Marluce Caldas

0:49:31 — EDcl no AgRg no AREsp 2.706.833/SP, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

0:49:59 — AgRg no HC 1.050.739/SP, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik

0:56:41 — AgRg no AgRg no HC 1.017.014/SP, Reporting Justice: Joel Ilan Paciornik

0:59:30 — AgRg no RHC 234.940/RJ, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

1:03:02 — AgRg no HC 1.073.683/PB, Reporting Justice: Messod Azulay Neto

1:27:34 — AgRg no HC 1.028.564/SP, Reporting Justice: Marluce Caldas

1:41:15 — AgRg no HC 1.046.805/SC, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

1:55:48 — AgRg no HC 1.076.332/SP, Reporting Justice: Marluce Caldas

2:13:52 — AgRg no HC 1.073.394/AC, Reporting Justice: Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca

2:26:50 — AgRg no HC 1.075.327/SP, Reporting Justice: Marluce Caldas

2:34:09 — REsp 2.220.498/RS, Reporting Justice: Ribeiro Dantas

2:59:53 — Closing Remarks

3:05:56 — End of Session

---

REFERENCES

The URLs below were checked during the preparation of this version on August 17, 2026. The unstable direct-document URL previously used for AREsp 3.028.845/PR has been removed. Reference [1] uses the official STJ “Íntegra de Acórdãos” search system.

[1] BRASIL. SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA. Íntegra de Acórdãos. Brasília, DF: STJ. Search parameters: Classe: AREsp; Número: 3028845; Registro: 2025/0322817-9. Available at:

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/acordaos/?vPortalArea=1186

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[2] BRASIL. SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA. Quinta Turma - STJ - 16/06/2026. YouTube, 16 June 2026. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYSvUDXc5A

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[3] BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicaocompilado.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[4] BRASIL. Decreto-Lei nº 3.689, de 3 de outubro de 1941. Código de Processo Penal. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del3689compilado.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[5] BRASIL. Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015. Código de Processo Civil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[6] BRASIL. Lei nº 8.906, de 4 de julho de 1994. Dispõe sobre o Estatuto da Advocacia e a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB). Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8906.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[7] BRASIL. Lei nº 13.245, de 12 de janeiro de 2016. Altera o art. 7º da Lei nº 8.906, de 4 de julho de 1994. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13245.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[8] BRASIL. Lei nº 9.784, de 29 de janeiro de 1999. Regula o processo administrativo no âmbito da Administração Pública Federal. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9784.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[9] BRASIL. SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL. Súmula Vinculante nº 14. Brasília, DF: STF. Available at:

https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudencia/sumariosumulas.asp?base=26&sumula=1230

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[10] TALON, Evinis. STJ: acesso parcial a provas impõe nulidade processual. Evinis Talon | Advogado Criminalista, 1 July 2026. Available at:

https://evinistalon.com/stj-acesso-parcial-a-provas-impoe-nulidade-processual/

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[11] CAVALCANTE, Márcio André Lopes. A defesa tem direito de acesso integral e tempestivo às gravações mantidas sob custódia estatal; a juntada das gravações apenas após as alegações finais gera nulidade, mesmo que o juiz tenha renovado a oportunidade de apresentar novas alegações finais. Buscador Dizer o Direito. Manaus. Available at:

https://buscadordizerodireito.com.br/jurisprudencia/14841/a-defesa-tem-direito-de-acesso-integral-e-tempestivo-as-gravacoes-mantidas-sob-custodia-estatal-a-juntada-das-gravacoes-apenas-apos-as-alegacoes-finais-gera-nulidade-mesmo-que-o-juiz-tenha-renovado-a-oportunidade-de-apresentar-novas-alegacoes-finais

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[12] BRASIL. Decreto nº 678, de 6 de novembro de 1992. Promulga a Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos (Pacto de São José da Costa Rica). Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d0678.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[13] ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. American Convention on Human Rights: “Pact of San José, Costa Rica”. Washington, D.C.: OAS. Available at:

https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[14] BRASIL. Decreto nº 592, de 6 de julho de 1992. Atos Internacionais. Pacto Internacional sobre Direitos Civis e Políticos. Promulgação. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. Available at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1990-1994/d0592.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[15] UNITED NATIONS. OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Adopted 7 September 1990. Geneva: OHCHR. Available at:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-role-lawyers

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[16] INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights. Washington, D.C.: IACHR. Available at:

https://cidh.oas.org/countryrep/AccesoDESC07eng/Accesodesciii.eng.htm

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[17] INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. San José, Costa Rica: IACtHR. Official Court Library record available at:

Case page:

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/ver_ficha_tecnica.cfm?lang=en&nId_Ficha=357⁠

Spanish page:

https://corteidh.or.cr/ver_ficha_tecnica.cfm?lang=es&nId_Ficha=357⁠

https://biblioteca.corteidh.or.cr/documento/65760

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[18] INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. San José, Costa Rica: IACtHR. Official Court Library record available at:

Case page:

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/ver_ficha_tecnica.cfm?lang=en&nId_Ficha=313⁠

Full judgment:

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_135_esp.pdf⁠

https://biblioteca.corteidh.or.cr/documento/65102

Full judgment available at:

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_135_esp.pdf

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[19] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Matanović v. Croatia, Application No. 2742/12, Judgment, 4 April 2017. Strasbourg: ECHR, HUDOC. Available at:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-172466

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[20] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], Application No. 28901/95, Judgment, 16 February 2000. Strasbourg: ECHR, HUDOC. Available at:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58496

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[21] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Natunen v. Finland, Application No. 21022/04, Judgment, 31 March 2009. Strasbourg: ECHR, HUDOC. Available at:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91932

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[22] UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office. Available at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-373/USREPORTS-373-83

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[23] UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). Washington, D.C.: United States Reports; Library of Congress. Available at:

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep514419/

Official U.S. Reports PDF:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep514/usrep514419/usrep514419.pdf

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[24] UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office. Available at:

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-480/USREPORTS-480-39

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

[25] UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT. Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (2016), per curiam, included in Order List of March 7, 2016. Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States. Available at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030716zor_linq.pdf

Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2026.

Important publication note: this version deliberately does not label the summaries of Evinis Talon or Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante as “literal translations” of their complete articles. The publicly accessible material is identified and attributed exactly as available; no subscriber-only or unseen text has been reconstructed. The STJ passages reproduced in English, by contrast, are translated directly from the official 25-page judgment provided and verified for this work.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Pesquisar este blog

segunda-feira, 17 de agosto de 2026

BRAZILIAN SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (STJ): THE DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO FULL AND TIMELY ACCESS TO EVIDENCE UNDER STATE CUSTODY, FROM THE RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVIDENTIARY PHASE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

AREsp 3.028.845/PR: the late presentation of evidence does not restore lost defense opportunities nor cure the violation of due process of law, the adversarial process, full defense, equality of arms, and the professional prerogatives of lawyers

MINDD Analysis with assistance of AI CHATGPT:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. AREsp 3.028.845/PR: Case Identification and Procedural Context

3. The Five Holdings Formally Established by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice

4. Full, Timely, and Verifiable Access: What the STJ Actually Held

5. Why Late Disclosure Does Not Restore Lost Defense Opportunities

6. Digital Evidence, Completeness, and Chain of Custody

7. Due Process, Full Defense, and Adversarial Proceedings Under the 1988 Brazilian Constitution

8. Due Process, Full Defense, and Adversarial Proceedings Are Not Limited to Criminal Law

8.1. The Express Constitutional Text: Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

8.2. Civil Proceedings: Articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

8.3. Administrative Proceedings: Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999

8.4. The American Convention and Inter-American Administrative Due Process

9. Lawyers’ Professional Prerogatives and Access to Evidence

10. Brazilian Legal Commentary on AREsp 3.028.845/PR

10.1. Evinis Talon

10.2. Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante — Dizer o Direito

11. International Human-Rights Standards

11.1. American Convention on Human Rights

11.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

11.3. United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers

12. Inter-American Human-Rights Jurisprudence

13. European Court of Human Rights: Disclosure and Effective Defense

13.1. Matanović v. Croatia

13.2. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom

13.3. Natunen v. Finland

14. United States Supreme Court Comparative Analysis

14.1. Brady v. Maryland

14.2. Kyles v. Whitley

14.3. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

14.4. Wearry v. Cain

14.5. Why AREsp 3.028.845/PR Is Not Simply a “Brazilian Brady”

15. Source-Grounded Comparative Findings

16. Conclusion

Appendix I — Unofficial English Translation of the Official STJ Headnote and Five Holdings

Appendix II — Key Passages and FULL Opinion of the STJ in English

Appendix III — Official STJ Judgment Video and Complete Session Index

17. References

1. INTRODUCTION

2. AREsp 3.028.845/PR: CASE IDENTIFICATION AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

3. THE FIVE HOLDINGS FORMALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE BRAZILIAN SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

1. Recorded evidence maintained under State custody must be made available to the defense in a full, timely, and verifiable manner.

2. Unilateral selection, by the prosecution, of excerpts regarded as relevant does not substitute for defense control over the evidentiary source.

4. Violation of full and timely access to digital or recorded evidence compromises chain of custody, equality of arms, and the reliability of the evidentiary process.

5. Once the defect is recognized, the procedural acts performed from the response to the accusation onward must be declared null, with renewal of the affected evidentiary acts. [1]

4. FULL, TIMELY, AND VERIFIABLE ACCESS: WHAT THE STJ ACTUALLY HELD

5. WHY LATE DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RESTORE LOST DEFENSE OPPORTUNITIES

6. DIGITAL EVIDENCE, COMPLETENESS, AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

7. DUE PROCESS, FULL DEFENSE, AND ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE 1988 BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION

8. DUE PROCESS, FULL DEFENSE, AND ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT LIMITED TO CRIMINAL LAW

8.1. The Express Constitutional Text: Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

8.2. Civil Proceedings: Articles 7, 9, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure

8.3. Administrative Proceedings: Article 2 of Law No. 9,784/1999

8.4. The American Convention and Inter-American Administrative Due Process

9. LAWYERS’ PROFESSIONAL PREROGATIVES AND ACCESS TO EVIDENCE

10. BRAZILIAN LEGAL COMMENTARY ON AREsp 3.028.845/PR

10.1. Evinis Talon

10.2. Márcio André Lopes Cavalcante — Dizer o Direito

11. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN-RIGHTS STANDARDS

11.1. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

DUE PROCESS BEYOND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 8(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION

11.2. THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

11.3 UNITED NATIONS BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS

12. INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN-RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE

12.1 BARRETO LEIVA v. VENEZUELA

12.2 PALAMARA IRIBARNE v. CHILE

13. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: DISCLOSURE AND EFFECTIVE DEFENSE

13.1. Matanović v. Croatia

13.2. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom

13.3. Natunen v. Finland

14. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

14.1. Brady v. Maryland

14.2. Kyles v. Whitley