THE ADMISSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE: ART. 8º-a, § 4º, FEDERAL STATUTE 92296/1996 AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | |
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 |