The defense of federal deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) presented to the Italian Court, this Thursday (4), the opinion of rapporteur Diego Garcia (Republicanos-PR), who recommended that she maintain her mandate, as part of a set of new documents attached to the extradition process. Given the inclusion of the material, the Italian Court of Appeal postponed the decision on the case until December 18.
According to lawyer Fabio Pagnozzi, who represents the parliamentarian, a list of dozens of documents would prove that she is suffering political persecution and, in addition, would inform about the degrading conditions in Brazilian prisons.
“More than 70 documents were presented to the Italian Court, including the opinion of the CCJ of the Chamber of Deputies, statements by deputies and senators who claim that Carla is suffering political persecution and also the poor conditions of prisons in Brazil,” Pagnozzi declared to People’s Gazette.
SEE ALSO:
Garcia’s opinion maintains that Zambelli’s sentence by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to ten years in prison for invading the National Justice Council (CNJ) system was based on a statement from the whistleblower, Walter Delgatti Neto, considered fragile by the rapporteur. Garcia’s opinion will still be voted on at the CCJ.
This Thursday, Carla Zambelli appeared in person at the Italian Court of Appeal, which will judge her extradition. The Federal Attorney General’s Office (AGU) contested, during the hearing, the inclusion of these documents, claiming that they would not meet deadline and format parameters.
The Italian Court will decide on December 18th whether or not to accept the inclusion of these documents and will then decide whether to extradite her or keep her in a foreign country.
Opinion in favor of Zambelli concluded that Delgatti’s testimony was dubious
In the opinion of the Chamber’s CCJ, it was described that the complaint against the deputy included “falsified documents attributed to the National Justice Council system, such as orders to remove bank secrecy and arrest warrants in the name of Minister Alexandre de Moraes.”
“Such files were merely received, without there being a response, forwarding or any act that demonstrated instigation, consent or prior knowledge of the illicit origin”, says the text.
In Garcia’s report, the fragile nature of this evidence for revoking the mandate is highlighted.
“If the Federal Supreme Court understood that dubious testimony and some files received by email are enough to justify a criminal conviction, this House cannot, and should not, reproduce such logic to revoke a parliamentary mandate.”
