THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Suxberger, Antonio
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Aras, Vladimir
Tipo de documento: preprint
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: SciELO Preprints
Texto Completo: https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2722
Resumo: This paper examines the admissibility of conversational recordings as criminal evidence, when provided by one of its participants. This research addresses the understanding of Brazilian courts on the matter and, in a more specific manner, discusses the interpretative problems arising from the overthrow of the presidential veto to §4 of Article 8-A of Federal Statute 9.296/1996, which regulates communication interceptions, as modified by the Statute 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Act). Considering the lack of legislative technique as a starting point, the alleged admissibility of these unilateral recordings just “in matters of defense” is analysed. This new hermeneutical problem was brought about by the Federal Statute 13.964 of 2019 (known as “Anti-Crime Act”). Methodologically, the approach is deductive. It promotes a literature review and documental analysis, covering normative texts and cases judged by foreign countries and by the European Court of Human Rights. Its contribution consists in the proposal of a solution to the controversies arisen on the above-mentioned provision, in force since 2021. Therefore, this discussion will be useful for Criminal Procedural Law’s studies, especially on Evidence Law, with relevance towards privacy and data protection themes.
id SCI-1_f58c4b9f810e69b3eff44edae83e1abd
oai_identifier_str oai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2722
network_acronym_str SCI-1
network_name_str SciELO Preprints
repository_id_str
spelling THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCELA ADMISSIBILIDAD DE LAS GRAVACIONES CLANDESTINAS COMO PRUEBA: EL ART. 8º-a, § 4º, DE LA LEY 9.296/1996 COMO REGLA DE DERECHO PROBATÓRIOA ADMISSIBILIDADE DE GRAVAÇÕES UNILATERAIS COMO PROVA: O § 4º DO ART. 8º-A DA LEI 9.296/1996 COMO UMA REGRA DE DIREITO PROBATÓRIOdireito à privacidadegravação unilateral espontâneaparticularuso como prova em processos penaisadmissibilidade de provaright to privacyspontaneous unilateral recordingprivate citizenuse as evidence in criminal procedureevidence’s admissibilityderecho a privacidadgrabación unilateral espontaneaciudadanouso de la prueba en el proceso penaladmisibilidad de la pruebaThis paper examines the admissibility of conversational recordings as criminal evidence, when provided by one of its participants. This research addresses the understanding of Brazilian courts on the matter and, in a more specific manner, discusses the interpretative problems arising from the overthrow of the presidential veto to §4 of Article 8-A of Federal Statute 9.296/1996, which regulates communication interceptions, as modified by the Statute 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Act). Considering the lack of legislative technique as a starting point, the alleged admissibility of these unilateral recordings just “in matters of defense” is analysed. This new hermeneutical problem was brought about by the Federal Statute 13.964 of 2019 (known as “Anti-Crime Act”). Methodologically, the approach is deductive. It promotes a literature review and documental analysis, covering normative texts and cases judged by foreign countries and by the European Court of Human Rights. Its contribution consists in the proposal of a solution to the controversies arisen on the above-mentioned provision, in force since 2021. Therefore, this discussion will be useful for Criminal Procedural Law’s studies, especially on Evidence Law, with relevance towards privacy and data protection themes.El artículo examina la admisibilidad como prueba en juicio de las grabaciones, presencialmente o no, realizadas por uno de los interlocutores. La investigación aborda la posición de los tribunales brasileños en el tema y, de manera más limitada, discute los problemas interpretativos que surgen desde el derrocamiento del veto presidencial contra el § 4 del art. 8-A de la Ley 9.296/1996, que regula la interceptación ambiental y la grabación clandestina, modificada por la Ley 13.964/2019 (Paquete Anti-Crimen). Desde las fallas técnicas del texto legislativo, el articulo analiza la supuesta limitación al uso de estas grabaciones unilaterales sólo “en materia de defensa”. Metodológicamente, el enfoque es deductivo y utiliza la revisión de la literatura y el análisis de documentos, cubriendo textos normativos y casos juzgados por países extranjeros y por la Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos. El aporte del artículo consiste en proponer solución para las controversias interpretativas del párrafo mencionado, que entró en vigor en el año 2021. Por lo tanto, se dirige a los estudiosos del Derecho Procesal Penal, en especial del Derecho Probatorio, con relevancia en los campos de la privacidad y protección de dados.O artigo examina a admissibilidade em juízo de gravações, presenciais ou não, feitas por um dos interlocutores como prova. A pesquisa aborda a posição dos tribunais brasileiros na matéria e, de maneira mais delimitada, discute os problemas interpretativos decorrentes da derrubada do veto presidencial ao §4º do art. 8º-A da Lei 9.296/1996, que regula a interceptação ambiental e a gravação clandestina, alterada pela Lei 13.964/2019 (Pacote Anticrime). A partir das falhas técnica do texto legislativo, analisa-se a suposta limitação de uso dessas gravações unilaterais apenas “em matéria de defesa”. Metodologicamente, a abordagem é dedutiva e se vale da revisão da literatura e de análise documental, abrangendo textos normativos e casos julgados por países estrangeiros e pela Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos. A contribuição do artigo consiste na proposta de solução das controvérsias interpretativas do referido dispositivo, que entrou em vigor em 2021. Por isso, dirige-se aos estudiosos do Direito Processual Penal, especialmente o Direito probatório, com relevância nos campos da privacidade e da proteção de dados.SciELO PreprintsSciELO PreprintsSciELO Preprints2021-07-30info:eu-repo/semantics/preprintinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/272210.1590/SciELOPreprints.2722porhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2722/4771Copyright (c) 2021 Antonio Suxberger, Vladimir Arashttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSuxberger, AntonioAras, Vladimirreponame:SciELO Preprintsinstname:SciELOinstacron:SCI2021-07-29T14:16:25Zoai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2722Servidor de preprintshttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scieloONGhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/oaiscielo.submission@scielo.orgopendoar:2021-07-29T14:16:25SciELO Preprints - SciELOfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
LA ADMISSIBILIDAD DE LAS GRAVACIONES CLANDESTINAS COMO PRUEBA: EL ART. 8º-a, § 4º, DE LA LEY 9.296/1996 COMO REGLA DE DERECHO PROBATÓRIO
A ADMISSIBILIDADE DE GRAVAÇÕES UNILATERAIS COMO PROVA: O § 4º DO ART. 8º-A DA LEI 9.296/1996 COMO UMA REGRA DE DIREITO PROBATÓRIO
title THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
spellingShingle THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
Suxberger, Antonio
direito à privacidade
gravação unilateral espontânea
particular
uso como prova em processos penais
admissibilidade de prova
right to privacy
spontaneous unilateral recording
private citizen
use as evidence in criminal procedure
evidence’s admissibility
derecho a privacidad
grabación unilateral espontanea
ciudadano
uso de la prueba en el proceso penal
admisibilidad de la prueba
title_short THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
title_full THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
title_fullStr THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
title_full_unstemmed THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
title_sort THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
author Suxberger, Antonio
author_facet Suxberger, Antonio
Aras, Vladimir
author_role author
author2 Aras, Vladimir
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Suxberger, Antonio
Aras, Vladimir
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv direito à privacidade
gravação unilateral espontânea
particular
uso como prova em processos penais
admissibilidade de prova
right to privacy
spontaneous unilateral recording
private citizen
use as evidence in criminal procedure
evidence’s admissibility
derecho a privacidad
grabación unilateral espontanea
ciudadano
uso de la prueba en el proceso penal
admisibilidad de la prueba
topic direito à privacidade
gravação unilateral espontânea
particular
uso como prova em processos penais
admissibilidade de prova
right to privacy
spontaneous unilateral recording
private citizen
use as evidence in criminal procedure
evidence’s admissibility
derecho a privacidad
grabación unilateral espontanea
ciudadano
uso de la prueba en el proceso penal
admisibilidad de la prueba
description This paper examines the admissibility of conversational recordings as criminal evidence, when provided by one of its participants. This research addresses the understanding of Brazilian courts on the matter and, in a more specific manner, discusses the interpretative problems arising from the overthrow of the presidential veto to §4 of Article 8-A of Federal Statute 9.296/1996, which regulates communication interceptions, as modified by the Statute 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Act). Considering the lack of legislative technique as a starting point, the alleged admissibility of these unilateral recordings just “in matters of defense” is analysed. This new hermeneutical problem was brought about by the Federal Statute 13.964 of 2019 (known as “Anti-Crime Act”). Methodologically, the approach is deductive. It promotes a literature review and documental analysis, covering normative texts and cases judged by foreign countries and by the European Court of Human Rights. Its contribution consists in the proposal of a solution to the controversies arisen on the above-mentioned provision, in force since 2021. Therefore, this discussion will be useful for Criminal Procedural Law’s studies, especially on Evidence Law, with relevance towards privacy and data protection themes.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-07-30
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/preprint
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format preprint
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2722
10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2722
url https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2722
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2722
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2722/4771
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Antonio Suxberger, Vladimir Aras
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Antonio Suxberger, Vladimir Aras
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 SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
SciELO Preprints
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SciELO Preprints
instname:SciELO
instacron:SCI
instname_str SciELO
instacron_str SCI
institution SCI
reponame_str SciELO Preprints
collection SciELO Preprints
repository.name.fl_str_mv SciELO Preprints - SciELO
repository.mail.fl_str_mv scielo.submission@scielo.org
_version_ 1797047824237461504

Registros relacionados