Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Santa Catarina v. Santos Ferraz

On Appeal Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Speech
  • Date of Decision
    March 17, 2015
  • Outcome
    Dismissed, Acquittal
  • Case Number
    0067370-64.2012.8.24.0023
  • Region & Country
    Brazil, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Law enforcement, Criminal Defamation, Public Officials

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

There is a Spanish language version of this case available.    View Spanish version

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Santos Ferraz was charged with the crime of contempt by the Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil. In a groundbreaking and unprecedented decision, on his own initiative, the judge of first instance exercised the conventionality control and declared the criminal contempt statute was inapplicable in this case. As a result, the judge dismissed the complaint and declared the innocence of the accused.


Facts

Santos Ferraz was charged with the crime of contempt under article 331 of the Brazilian Criminal Code, over insults directed against members of the military police in the city of Florianopolis, Brazil. The defense argued the accused lacked intent or mens rea. However, the judge of first instance exercised on his own initiative the conventionality control and declared the criminal contempt statute was inapplicable in this case. As a result, the judge dismissed the complaint and declared the innocence of the accused.


Decision Overview

The court of first instance, in an unprecedented decision in the country, applied out of its own initiative, or ex officio, the conventionality control in the case and found the criminal statute was incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, hence, rejected the complaint. The court stated “a law’s compatibility is not a mere ability conferred to individual judges, but an obligation, in light of the principle of the Constitutional supremacy”, [part II] that requires judges to exercise the control of conventionality.

The judge indicated that, as a result, adjudicators have the duty to set aside “juridical norms of a legal nature that contravene international human rights treaties” [part II]; the judge stressed that the Inter-American legal and doctrinal framework, as well as comparative law, declares that the crime of contempt is incompatible with article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights which, in turn, requires the inapplicability of this crime. In this sense, the judge concluded that “a public display of disrespect expressed by an individual against an agent while that is carrying out administrative activities […] does not constitute an act whose prejudicial effect merits the deployment of criminal protection. It is clearly an authoritative legal provision” [part II].

 

The judge held the complaint was inadmissible and acquitted the accused of the crime of contempt.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

Although it is the decision of a lower or first instance court, it is highlighted because it was unprecedented that a judge, on his own initiative or ex officio, declared the crime of contempt incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, rejected a criminal complaint that was based on this statute.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Guat., Constitutional Court, Exp. 1122-2005 (2006)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:



Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback