Mark NadiloAlexandre de Moraes STF: Decision by Alexandre de Moraes on Cancer Patient Sparks Controversy and Questions Human Rights. Rejection of the request to remove electronic ankle bracelet raises criticism about the protection of fundamental rights
The recent decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), rejecting the request of a defendant accused of involvement in the January 8th coup attempt to remove her electronic ankle bracelet, has brought to light a deeply troubling debate about the limits of justice, human rights, and the dignity of individuals. This situation is not only an example of the tensions between public security and individual rights but also a reflection of systemic failures in the protection of human rights and the guarantee of humanitarian justice.
1. The Decision and its Humanitarian Implications
The defendant, who faces a serious health condition, requested the removal of the electronic ankle bracelet, claiming that her medical treatment was being compromised by the restriction imposed by the device. Cancer is a disease that requires constant and often complex care, and the presence of an electronic ankle bracelet can significantly interfere with access to and the effectiveness of that care. The decision to keep the device, rejecting the request for its removal, raises serious questions about the humanity of justice and the state’s responsibility to ensure the right to health.
Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “all are equal before the law, without distinction of any kind,” and guarantees the right to health as a duty of the state. However, the decision not to remove the electronic ankle bracelet seems to disregard the defendant’s urgent and special medical needs, highlighting a concerning gap in the equitable application of these rights.
2. Human Rights and the Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide a fundamental framework for protecting individual rights, especially in contexts of vulnerability. Article 3 of the UDHR asserts that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Ignoring the urgent medical needs of a person with cancer and maintaining restrictions that may hinder her treatment appears to be a direct violation of this principle.
Article 7 of the ICCPR establishes that “All persons shall be treated with dignity and humanity in all circumstances.” Moraes’ decision could be interpreted as a failure to ensure that the defendant is treated with the dignity and humanity she deserves, especially given the severity of her health condition.
See the order of Minister Alexandre de Moraes:
NEGATIVA-MORAES
3. The Brazilian Constitution and Fundamental Rights
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988, in Article 196, guarantees that “health is a right of all and a duty of the state.” This constitutional guarantee implies that the state must ensure adequate conditions for all citizens, including those in detention, to have access to necessary health care. The decision to keep the electronic ankle bracelet, which may be compromising the defendant’s health, appears to be a violation of this fundamental principle.
Additionally, Article 5 of the Constitution establishes equality before the law and the right to human dignity. Inhumane treatment and the neglect to provide adequate medical care are incompatible with these principles, especially in cases where the medical condition is severe and potentially fatal.
4. Lack of Adequate Alternatives
The decision to keep the electronic ankle bracelet without considering adequate alternatives that ensure the defendant’s safety and well-being is particularly alarming. In situations where an individual’s health is at risk, it is essential to explore solutions that allow for the enforcement of security measures without compromising health. The lack of a flexible and humanitarian approach reflects a failure in the administration of justice that should be more sensitive to individual circumstances.
5. Impacts and Implications for the Justice System
This decision not only raises questions about the dignity and rights of the defendant but also sheds light on the need for a review of judicial practices and control systems in similar cases. Justice should be administered in a way that balances public protection with respect for individual rights and needs. The rigid approach adopted in this case may have negative implications for public perception of the judicial system and trust in the state’s ability to deliver justice in an equitable and humanitarian manner.
6. Societal Reaction and the Role of Human Rights
The societal reaction to this decision clearly indicates the importance of ensuring that justice is applied with humanity and consideration for individual rights. Human rights organizations, justice advocates, and citizens have a crucial role in demanding a review of judicial practices and ensuring that the needs of individuals in vulnerable situations are adequately addressed. Public pressure and oversight can play a key role in promoting changes and ensuring that justice is not compromised by a rigid and insensitive application of the law.
7. International Examples and Comparisons
Examining judicial practices and justice systems in other countries can provide insights into how to handle similar situations in a more humane manner. Many countries have examples of creative and flexible solutions that ensure public safety while respecting individual rights and needs. Comparing these practices can help identify areas for improvement and promote a more balanced and compassionate approach to administering justice.
8. Paths for the Future
To ensure that justice is administered fairly and humanely, it is crucial to review and reform judicial practices, especially in cases involving individuals in vulnerable conditions. Implementing mechanisms that allow for a deeper consideration of individual circumstances and medical needs is essential. Additionally, it is important for the justice system to continue evolving to reflect fundamental principles of dignity, equality, and respect for human rights.
