Standards da prova de corroboração na colaboração premiada

• Autor(a) principal: Nóbrega, Rafael Estrela
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: [e-mail]
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/18991
• topic: Proof; Corroboration; Objective; Control; Prova; Verdade; Corroboração; Standards; Objetivos; Controle; CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PENAL

The purpose of the evidence during the trial is to proivide concrete elements that ensure the historical reconstruction and proof of the alleged facts. In this procedural phase, all efforts must be directed towards a perfect investigation, which requires the commitment of all parties involved, in the common goal of reaching the truth. From this perspective, the Judiciary is committed to the solution of the concrete case and the pacification of the dispute, making available all the essential apparatus, either in technology, or in human resources, for the best solution of the cas. Justice, legal certainty and the reliability of the population in the State as the holder of the ius puniendi is revealed in the moment of the decision. The closer to the truth of the facts, the greater the definition of effectiveness of the jurisdictional provision is. The best formula for achieving this task consists in gathering and acquiring a complex of accurate and robust proofs, in order to guarantee consistency in proving the factual premises that make up the hypothesis under consideration. In view of this commitment, specifically that of ascertaining the truth, it is worth emphasizing the importance of legal institutions that can contribute to this desideratum, even more so when in the context of award-winning collaboration. This, while dedicated to the dismantling of well-engineered and structured criminal organizations, poses challenges to state power regarding the faithful observance of its procedural requirements, especially the object of this work, chich are the plea bargain and the external elements of corroboration. Although legitimately recognized by law, the plea bargain, morally, raises doubts, which determines the establishment of a stricter level of control. In this way, this work aims to analyze the indispensability of corroborative evidentiary standards in the context of award-winning collaboration as an instrument of control of the judicial decision, in order to provide the judge with means, paradigms and objective criteria to investigate the sufficiency of evidence and to define the statements of the whistleblower authorized to receive the denunciation or complaint, the enactment of personal or actual precautionary measures and the criminal conviction of the person on trial. The judge, as the recipient of the test result, will be provided with minimal tools that will guide him in this decision, not only because he needs to be personally convinced, but also on account of it is, essentially, required to demonstrate that the methodology used in the inferential mental process to decide has as subsidies only the premises emanating from the evidence. The transparency of the decision-making model reinforces the bases of the Democratic State of Law and the constitutional guidelines of Due Legal Process.