| Popis: |
Portuguese Abstract: Durante o periodo da pandemia do COVID-19 a sociedade brasileira enfrenta diversos desafios urgentes, especialmente aqueles ligados a protecao e garantia do exercicio dos direitos fundamentais a vida, saude e integridade fisica. A populacao carceraria e particularmente vulneravel ao virus tanto em razao das condicoes sanitarias ja absolutamente precarias dos estabelecimentos prisionais brasileiros mesmo antes da pandemia, quanto em funcao do aumento significativo das chances de contaminacao de pessoas forcadas a situacoes de grande aglomeracao em superlotacao. O Marco Legal da Primeira Infância estabelece garantias especiais no âmbito do processo penal para pais e maes de criancas nessa fase inicial da vida em razao de suas necessidades especiais de cuidado. Seja para esse grupo de pais e maes, seja para investigados, indiciados, denunciados, reus e condenados, a principal medida processual, com efeito potencialmente rapido para sanar situacoes de excepcional vulnerabilidade durante a pandemia, bem como garantir que a persecucao penal nao seja desproporcional nesse cenario de emergencia social, e o habeas corpus. Analisar, portanto, o tratamento dado aos pedidos de habeas corpus pelo Judiciario brasileiro durante esse periodo e essencial. Adotamos o recorte do Supremo Tribunal Federal e Superior Tribunal de Justica com o objetivo de responder a pergunta: qual o tratamento dado aos pedidos de habeas corpus nos tribunais superiores durante a pandemia? Utilizamos metodo quantitativo, com analise censitaria e tambem de amostra aleatoria de 914 processos de habeas corpus que tramitaram nesses tribunais entre 1o de janeiro de 2019 e 15 de maio de 2019 (como grupo de controle) e no mesmo periodo em 2020. Diante dos resultados da pesquisa, a analise aponta para uma alteracao sutil do padrao decisorio de HCs no contexto da pandemia, tanto no STF quanto no STJ. Os resultados mostram indicios de que o volume de HCs impetrados tenha aumentado no STF, mas nao no STJ. Em paralelo, o STF esta decidindo com mais agilidade os HCs de seu painel do COVID-19 do que aqueles fora do painel ou do que aqueles impetrados no mesmo periodo em 2019. O resultado dos processos e muito similar antes e durante a pandemia, para ambos os tribunais, tanto na analise censitaria quanto na amostral. Nao parece existir, no geral, um tratamento muito diverso dos casos pelos dois tribunais apenas em razao do periodo de emergencia social. No entanto, ha maior taxa de concessao para os HCs impetrados pela Defensoria Publica no STJ durante a pandemia. Alem disso a taxa de sucesso em HCs coletivos no STJ e bem mais alta durante a pandemia, e tambem do que a taxa de sucesso de HCs individuais no mesmo periodo. A analise amostral do grau de importância que a pandemia teve na fundamentacao das decisoes mostra que ele e em geral muito baixo. Esse dado, em conjunto com a conclusao de que o volume de HCs impetrados pouco subiu em razao da pandemia, especialmente no caso do STJ, permite descartar previsoes de que o COVID-19 iria causar uma enxurrada de pedidos de soltura nos tribunais superiores, cujos ministros iriam entao se sensibilizar com a condicao delicada dos pacientes e liberar as portas dos presidios. No STF, a pandemia foi menos importante para a fundamentacao de decisoes sobre HCs que atacavam decisoes colegiadas. Esses sao os HCs de menor fragilidade, pois se insurgem contra decisao de varios magistrados. O STF mostrou que em tais casos a pandemia e um fator menor na analise do pedido. De qualquer forma, a aplicacao virtualmente nula do Marco Legal da Primeira Infância nas decisoes, em um cenario de persecucao penal e sistema prisional que afetam numero significativo de gestantes e maes, gera preocupacao. Novos estudos devem testar novamente a hipotese em outras instâncias judiciais e contextos e procurar desvendar as causas para tal ineficacia do Marco. English Abstract: During the covid-19 pandemic, Brazilian society faces several urgent challenges, especially those related to the protection and exercise of fundamental rights to life, health and physical integrity. Incarcerated individuals are particularly vulnerable to the virus in light of both the already absolutely precarious sanitary conditions of Brazilian prison facilities even before the pandemic and the significant increase in the chances of contamination of people placed in situations of forced conglomeration. The First Infancy Legal Framework establishes special criminal procedure guarantees for parents of children in that initial phase of their lives due to the peculiar care needs. The habeas corpus is the main procedural tool for such parents, as well as for people investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted in the first stance and even those serving sentence, with potentially fast efficacy to remedy situations of exceptional vulnerability during the pandemics and to ensure that criminal prosecution is proportional during social emergency. Therefore, it is essential to analyze habeas corpus rulings by the Brazilian Judiciary throughout the quarantine. We focused on the Supreme Court (STF) and Superior Court of Justice (STJ) with the goal of answering the question: what is the treatment given to habeas corpus writs by superior courts in the course of the pandemic? Using quantitative methods, with analysis of the entire universe and also a random sample of 914 cases filed in these courts between January 1st and May 15th, 2019 (control group) and the same period in 2020. Our findings indicate a subtle deviation from decision-making patterns during the pandemic in both the STF and the STJ. The results show some evidence that the number of cases filed increased in the STF, but not in the STJ. In parallel, the STF decides cases it has tagged as covid-19-related faster than the rest in 2020 and also than in 2019. The outcome of cases if very similar before and during the pandemic for both courts. There does not seem to exist, in general, a significantly diverse treatment of cases by these courts that can be attributed to the context of social emergency. The success rate of writs filed by the Public Defender’s Office at the STJ, however, is higher during the pandemic. The same goes for collective habeas corpus requests at the STJ, which are more successful in the course of the pandemic and also when compared to individual writs. The sample analysis of the degree of relevance attributable to covid-19 in the reasoning of rulings shows it to be very low. This, combined with the conclusion that the number of writs filed has increased only slightly if at all, especially in the case of the STJ, discredits assumptions that covid-19 would cause an avalanche of release requests by incarcerated people or that the Justices would show substantial sensibility to the delicate condition of plaintiffs and open the doors of correctional facilities. In the STF the pandemic was less important in the reasoning of rulings on writs that attacked collegiate rulings. These cases are more fragile, as they request that a decision by several judges be overturned. The STF indicates that in such cases the coronavirus is a minor factor in the decision reasoning. In any event, it is a cause for concern the virtually nonexistent application of the First Infancy Legal Framework in the rulings, in a scenario of criminal prosecution and prison facilities that affect a significant number of pregnant women and mothers. New studies should test this again for other courts and contexts in order to shed more light on the Framework’s possible inefficacy. |
