O direito fundamental contra a autoincriminação: a análise a partir de uma teoria do Processo Penal Constitucional

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right that works in the criminal prosecution, and therefore deserves a study supported by the general theory of criminal procedure. The right has a vague origin, and despite the various historical accounts only arises when there is a criminal procedure structured that aims to limit the State´s duty-power to punish. The only system of criminal procedure experienced that reconciles with seal self-incrimination is the accusatory model. The inquisitorial model is based on the construction of a truth and obtaining the confession at any cost, and is therefore incompatible with the right in study. The consecration of the right arises with the importance that fundamental rights have come to occupy in the Democratic Constitutional States. In the Brazilian experience before 1988 was only possible to recognize that self-incrimination represented a procedural burden for accused persons. Despite thorough debate in the Constituent Assembly, the right remains consecrated in a textual formula that´s closer to the implementation made by the Supreme Court of the United States, known as "Miranda warnings", than the text of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established originally the right against self-incrimination with a constitutional status. However, the imprecise text does not prevent the consecration of the principle as a fundamental right in Brazilian law. The right against self-incrimination is a right that should be observed in the Criminal Procedure and relates to several of his canons, such as the the presumption of not guilty, the accusatory model, the distribution of the burden of proof, and especially the right of defense. Because it a fundamental right, the prohibition of self-incrimination deserves a proper study to her constitutional nature. For the definition of protected persons is important to build a material concept of accused, which is different of the formal concept over who is denounced on the prosecution. In the objective area of protection, there are two objects of protection of the norm: the instinct of self-preservation of the subject and the ability to self-determination. Configuring essentially a evidence rule in criminal procedure, the analysis of the case should be based on standards set previously to indicate respect for the right. These standard include the right to information of the accused, the right to counsel and respect the voluntary participation. The study of violations cases, concentrated on the element of voluntariness, starting from the definition of what is or is not a coercion violative of self-determination. The right faces new challenges that deserve attention, especially the fight against terrorism and organized crime that force the development of tools, resources and technologies about proves, methods increasingly invasive and hidden, and allow the use of information not only for criminal prosecution, but also for the establishment of an intelligence strategy in the development of national and public security

Ne bis in idem: limites jurídico-constitucionais à persecução penal

This legal research aims to demonstrate the prohibition in the Brazilian criminal system of a multiple imputation for the same fact in a simultaneous or successive way. For that it is developed a different idea of the subject. Through comparative, eletronic and bibliographical researches, the dissertation was accomplished in a way to establish the content of the foundations of the criminal procedural emphasizing as fundamental premise the values of the Constitution. In the first section it was demonstrated the limits of the theme and the objective of the research. After that, it was analyzed the basic function of the criminal suit which has the important mission of limiting state's punitive power. In the same way, the criminal procedure corresponds to a warranty of the citizens' freedom. In the same section, it is shown how it is possible to abandon the myth of the real truth in the criminal law system. In the third section of the research, there were pointed elements and definitions about the cognition object, specially the litigious object or "thema decidendum", and also the peculiarities of the judged cases. In the fourth section the subject about origins and evolution of the criminal procedure and its objectives in the legal system is developed to demonstrate its perspectives. Some aspects of the identity's concept of the presupposition of the facts are as well demonstrated in order to relate the theme to the prohibition of multiple imputation. There are also considerations about some other important aspects as the incidence of the legal rules and the possible change on the elements of the penal type. There are several comments about legal procedural in other legal systems comparing them to Brazilian's most elevated Courts. In the end it was systematized the limits to criminal imputation, emphasizing the defende's right as a foundation of the legal system. Is was registered that the ius persequendi can be exercised once

A investigação criminal e a vedação ao anonimato no sistema jurídico brasileiro

The thesis, prepared with basis on deductive reasoning (through the utilization of general concepts of the fundamental rights theory) and on inductive logic (by means of the consideration of particular situations in which the theme has been approached) deals with the criminal investigation and the prohibition of anonymity in the Brazilian law system. The state criminal investigation activity presents not only a substantial constitutional basis, due to the objective dimension of fundamental rights (which imposes an obligation to protect these essential values), but also a formal constitutional basis, arising from the administrative principles of rule of law, morality and efficiency, referred to in article 37 of the Constitution. The criminal investigation, however, is not an unlimited pursuit, being restrained by the duty to consider fundamental rights that oppose to its realization. One of the limits of the state investigation activity, in the Brazilian law system, is the prohibition of anonymity, referred to in article 5°, IV, of the Constitution. This prohibition is a direct constitutional restriction to the freedom of expression that aims to ensure the credibility of the diffusion of ideas and prevent the abusive exercise of this fundamental right, which could harm both persons and the state, with no possibility of punishment to the offending party. Generally, based on this prohibition, it is affirmed that a criminal investigation cannot begin and progress founded on anonymous communication of crimes. Informations about crimes to the investigative authorities require the correct identification of the stakeholders. Therefore, it is sustained that the prohibition of anonymity also comprehends the prohibition of utilization of pseudonyms and heteronyms. The main purpose of this essay is to recognize the limits and possibilities in starting and conducting criminal investigations based on communication of crimes made by unidentified persons, behind the veil of anonymity or hidden by pseudonyms or heteronyms. Although the prohibition of article 5°, IV, of the Constitution is not submitted to direct or indirect constitutional restrictions, this impediment can be object of mitigation in certain cases, in attention to the constitutional values that support state investigation. The pertinence analysis of the restrictions to the constitutional anonymity prohibition must consider the proportionality, integrated by the partial elements of adequacy, necessity and strict sense proportionality. The criminal investigation is a means to achieve a purpose, the protection of fundamental rights, because the disclosure of facts, through the investigatory activity, gives rise to the accomplishment of measures in order to prevent or punish the violations eventually verified. So, the start and the development of the state criminal investigation activity, based on a crime communication carried out by an unidentified person, will depend on the demonstration that the setting up and continuity of an investigation procedure, in each case, are an adequate, necessary and (in a strict sense) proportional means to the protection of fundamental rights