Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/696 |
Resumo: | This paper aims to analyze the interpretative scope of art. 8-A, § 4, of Law No. 9.296/1996, introduced by Law No. 13.964/2019, which establishes that only environmental recordings made by one of the interlocutors without the consent of the other may be used in criminal proceedings “in matters of defense”. It was inquired: are legal the environmental recordings made by the crime victims? As for the methodology, it uses inductive reasoning with the use of national and foreign literature review and judicial decisions on the subject, especially from the USA, Germany, Portugal, European and Inter-American human rights courts and the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). It is concluded that environmental recordings have a typicality of violation of the fundamental rights to image and voice, as well as the right to a hearing. Such typicality is indicative of illegality. However, the principle of proportionality works as an excluding cause of illegality. Thus, the situation of probative self-defense by the crime victim can justify the use of clandestine recordings, whenever the right to be protected has a higher value than the expectation of privacy and protection to the voice and image of the perpetrator of a crime. We conclude with the need for an interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, in order to understand that the clause means “in matters of defense of fundamental rights”. |
id |
IBRASPP-1_72e0ad63ada62702019d1a8d1c358bcd |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/696 |
network_acronym_str |
IBRASPP-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019A gravação ambiental feita pela vítima de crime: análise da continuidade de sua licitude após a Lei n. 13.964/2019Gravação ambientalPacote AnticrimeColisão de direitos fundamentaisPrincípio da proporcionalidade.Environment recordingAnti-Crime packageCollision of fundamental rightsProportionalityThis paper aims to analyze the interpretative scope of art. 8-A, § 4, of Law No. 9.296/1996, introduced by Law No. 13.964/2019, which establishes that only environmental recordings made by one of the interlocutors without the consent of the other may be used in criminal proceedings “in matters of defense”. It was inquired: are legal the environmental recordings made by the crime victims? As for the methodology, it uses inductive reasoning with the use of national and foreign literature review and judicial decisions on the subject, especially from the USA, Germany, Portugal, European and Inter-American human rights courts and the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). It is concluded that environmental recordings have a typicality of violation of the fundamental rights to image and voice, as well as the right to a hearing. Such typicality is indicative of illegality. However, the principle of proportionality works as an excluding cause of illegality. Thus, the situation of probative self-defense by the crime victim can justify the use of clandestine recordings, whenever the right to be protected has a higher value than the expectation of privacy and protection to the voice and image of the perpetrator of a crime. We conclude with the need for an interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, in order to understand that the clause means “in matters of defense of fundamental rights”.O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o alcance interpretativo do art. 8º-A, § 4º, da Lei n. 9.296/1996, introduzido pela Lei n. 13.964/2019, que estabelece que apenas poderão ser utilizadas no processo penal as gravações ambientais feitas por um dos interlocutores sem o consentimento do outro “em matéria de defesa”. Indagou-se: são lícitas as gravações ambientais realizadas por vítima de crime? Quanto à metodologia, utiliza-se do raciocínio indutivo com uso de revisão bibliográfica nacional e estrangeira e de decisões judiciais sobre o tema, especialmente dos EUA, Alemanha, Portugal, cortes europeia e interamericana de direitos humanos e do STF. Conclui-se que as gravações ambientais possuem uma tipicidade de violação dos direitos fundamentais à imagem e voz, bem como o direito ao auditório. Tal tipicidade é indicativa de ilicitude. Todavia, o princípio da proporcionalidade funciona como causa excludente da ilicitude. Assim, a situação de legítima defesa probatória pela vítima de crime pode justificar o uso de gravações clandestinas, sempre que o direito a ser protegido tiver valor superior à expectativa de privacidade e de proteção à voz e à imagem do autor de crime. Conclui-se com a necessidade de uma interpretação conforme à Constituição, para se entender o que a cláusula significa “em matéria de defesa de direitos fundamentais”.Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP2022-08-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/69610.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.696Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022)Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 8 Núm. 2 (2022)Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 8 N. 2 (2022)Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 8 n. 2 (2022)2525-510X10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online)instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)instacron:IBRASPPporhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/696/455Copyright (c) 2022 Charles Martins, Thiago Pierobom de Ávilahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMartins, CharlesÁvila, Thiago Pierobom de2022-08-26T11:03:45Zoai:ojs.revista.ibraspp.com.br:article/696Revistahttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPPONGhttps://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/oairevista@ibraspp.com.br2525-510X2359-3881opendoar:2022-08-26T11:03:45Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 A gravação ambiental feita pela vítima de crime: análise da continuidade de sua licitude após a Lei n. 13.964/2019 |
title |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
spellingShingle |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 Martins, Charles Gravação ambiental Pacote Anticrime Colisão de direitos fundamentais Princípio da proporcionalidade. Environment recording Anti-Crime package Collision of fundamental rights Proportionality |
title_short |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
title_full |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
title_fullStr |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
title_full_unstemmed |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
title_sort |
Environmental recordings by the victim of crime: analysis of its legality persistence after Law n. 13,964/2019 |
author |
Martins, Charles |
author_facet |
Martins, Charles Ávila, Thiago Pierobom de |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ávila, Thiago Pierobom de |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Martins, Charles Ávila, Thiago Pierobom de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Gravação ambiental Pacote Anticrime Colisão de direitos fundamentais Princípio da proporcionalidade. Environment recording Anti-Crime package Collision of fundamental rights Proportionality |
topic |
Gravação ambiental Pacote Anticrime Colisão de direitos fundamentais Princípio da proporcionalidade. Environment recording Anti-Crime package Collision of fundamental rights Proportionality |
description |
This paper aims to analyze the interpretative scope of art. 8-A, § 4, of Law No. 9.296/1996, introduced by Law No. 13.964/2019, which establishes that only environmental recordings made by one of the interlocutors without the consent of the other may be used in criminal proceedings “in matters of defense”. It was inquired: are legal the environmental recordings made by the crime victims? As for the methodology, it uses inductive reasoning with the use of national and foreign literature review and judicial decisions on the subject, especially from the USA, Germany, Portugal, European and Inter-American human rights courts and the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). It is concluded that environmental recordings have a typicality of violation of the fundamental rights to image and voice, as well as the right to a hearing. Such typicality is indicative of illegality. However, the principle of proportionality works as an excluding cause of illegality. Thus, the situation of probative self-defense by the crime victim can justify the use of clandestine recordings, whenever the right to be protected has a higher value than the expectation of privacy and protection to the voice and image of the perpetrator of a crime. We conclude with the need for an interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, in order to understand that the clause means “in matters of defense of fundamental rights”. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-08-26 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/696 10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.696 |
url |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/696 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.696 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/article/view/696/455 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Charles Martins, Thiago Pierobom de Ávila https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Charles Martins, Thiago Pierobom de Ávila https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal - IBRASPP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022) Revista Brasileña de Derecho Procesal Penal; Vol. 8 Núm. 2 (2022) Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; V. 8 N. 2 (2022) Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal; v. 8 n. 2 (2022) 2525-510X 10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) instname:Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) instacron:IBRASPP |
instname_str |
Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
instacron_str |
IBRASPP |
institution |
IBRASPP |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal (Online) - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal (IBRASPP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista@ibraspp.com.br |
_version_ |
1809281941232418816 |