[sizeofchar]

> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres.

Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and the constitution plainly prohibits it. They are abusing their power and are censoring activists, journalists and politicians, plain and simple.

> (which the accused parties have access to)

Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.

[antropofagico]

It’s arguably lawful. By the Brazilian Constitution, investigation on crimes committed against the Supreme Court are to be presided and supervised by the court itself. Furthermore, it’s been established that the whatever case comes out of the investigation will be sent to the Attorney General. It’s up to him follow prosecution. So no, they’re not the inquirer and the judge.

Questioning procedures is a healthy part of the democratic game. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s evidence that crimes we’re committed, and legal action is being taken.

[sizeofchar]

There is a internal regiment that postulates the court investigates crimes within the court. Justices then, by their own, and extrapolating interpretation of the law, came out that the Supreme Court abroads national territory, thus any act against it is considered "within". Does it seem fair to you?

Also, can you enlist a single of said crimes against the court?

[gota]

> There is nothing in the law that allows this

There is, though. They will forward the case to the general prosecutor's office, as the law dictates.

> and the constitution plainly prohibits it.

It really doesn't. In fact it mentions explicitly that the Supreme Court in Brazil must oversee the early investigations (before handing them over to the general prosecutor, although that part is not explicit).

I'm not really in favor of it, but this is the reality of the system in place.

[naivedevops]

> Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.

Do you have any source? I tried to google 'Roberto Jefferson OAB', but I found nothing.

[sizeofchar]

Here is some: https://www.oabpr.org.br/acesso-ao-inquerito-das-fake-news-d...

More here: https://www.oab.org.br/noticia/58247/defesa-da-democracia-e-...