Responsabilidade Criminal por Dinheiros Públicos, Branqueamento de Capitais/Lavagem de Dinheiro e Direitos Sociais

Em termos de dinheiros públicos, devemos ter em consideração a necessidade de ter que existir uma boa governança. É importante a participação. Também a transparência. E se os direitos e deveres sociais fundamentais estão interligados, não é menos verdade que é preciso a apresentação de boas contas à população. E aqui temos que falar também em plena responsabilidade pública. Num sentido lato, podemos falar num princípio geral de anticorrupção. O mau uso dos dinheiros públicos pode conduzir à responsabilidade de índole criminal. O crime de branqueamento/lavagem, um crime secundário, pode ter por origem ilícitos e/ou crimes que se relacionam com a utilização indevida de dinheiros públicos. A responsabilidade financeira e criminal pode aliás constituir um incremento na boa gestão dos dinheiros públicos. Deste modo – não tendo o direito penal finalidades de promoção ou de “combate”, mas ainda assim retributivos, preventivos gerais e especiais positivos e restaurativos -, podemos estar a caminhar para uma melhor concretização dos direitos, e dos deveres, que são garantidos do ponto de vista constitucional-constitucional. Afinal, todas as áreas do direito, são peças do mesmo jogo de xadrez. O Tribunal Constitucional em Portugal, o Supremo Tribunal Federal no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal de Justiça em Portugal, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça no Brasil, os Tribunais de Contas em ambos os países. § In terms of public money, we should take into account the need to have to be good governance. It is important to participate. Also transparency. And if fundamental rights and social duties are interrelated, it is also true that we need to present good accounts to the population. And here we must also speak in full public accountability. In a broad sense, we can speak of a general principle of anti-corruption. The misuse of public funds can lead to criminal nature of responsibility. The crime of money laundering, a secondary crime, may have as illicit origin and / or crimes that relate to the misuse of public funds. The financial and criminal liability may in fact be an increase in the sound management of public funds. Thus - not having the criminal law purposes of promotion or "combat", but still remunerative, general and special preventive and restorative positive - we may be heading for a better realization of the rights, and duties, which are guaranteed the constitutional-constitutional point of view. After all, all areas of the law are parts of the same game of chess. The Constitutional Court in Portugal, the Supreme Court in Brazil, the Supreme Court in Portugal, the Superior Court of Justice in Brazil, the Audit Courts in both countries.

Transitional justice in the judiciary: lessons from the portuguese democratisation

The nature of the Portuguese transition to democracy and the following state crises (1974-1975) created a ‘window of opportunity’ in which the ‘reaction to the past’ was much stronger than in the other Southern or even of Central and Eastern European transitions. In Portugal, initiatives of symbolic rupture with the past began soon after the April 25, 1974, coup d’état and transitional justice policies assumed mainly three formulas. First, the institutional reforms directed primarily to abusive state institutions such as the political police (PIDE-DGS) and political courts (Plenary courts) in order to dismantle the repressive apparatus and prevent further human rights abuses and impunity. Secondly, the criminal prosecutions addressed to perpetrators considered as being the most responsible for repression and abuses. Finally, lustration or political purges (saneamentos, the term used in Portugal to designate political purges) which were, in fact, the most common form of political justice in Portuguese transition to democracy. This paper deals with the peculiarities of transitional justice in Portugal devoting a particular attention to the judicial, a key sector to understand the way the Portuguese dealt with their authoritarian past.

Transplants: bioethics and justice

Bioethics, as a branch of philosophy that focuses on questions relative to health and human life, is closely tied to the idea of justice and equality. As such, in understanding the concept of equality in its original sense, that is, in associating it to the idea to treat "unequals" (those who are unequal or different, in terms of conditions or circumstances) unequally (differentially), in proportion to their inequalities (differences), we see that the so-called "one-and-only waiting list" for transplants established in law no. 9.434/97, ends up not addressing the concept of equality and justice, bearing upon bioethics, even when considering the objective criteria of precedence established in regulation no. 9.4347/98, Thus, the organizing of transplants on a one-and-only waiting list, with a few exceptions that are weakly applicable, without a case by case technical and grounded analysis, according to each particular necessity, ends up institutionalizing inequalities, condemning patients to happenstance and, consequently, departs from the ratio legis, which aims at seeking the greatest application of justice in regards to organ transplants. We conclude, therefore, that from an analysis of the legislation and of the principles of bioethics and justice, there is a need for the creation of a collegiate of medical experts, that, based on medical criteria and done in a well established manner, can analyze each case to be included on the waiting list, deferentially and according to the necessity; thus, precluding that people in special circumstances be treated equal to people in normal circumstances.

Environmental conflicts, environmental justice and valuation

In this article some historical and contemporary environmental conflicts are described. The international environmental liability of mining corporations is discussed. Comparisons are made with conflicts in the United States and in South Africa which fall under the rubric of the Environmental Justice movement. Such conflicts are fought out in many languages, and the economic valuation of damages is only one of such languages. Who has the power to impose particular languages of valuation? Who rules over the ways and means of simplifying complexity, deciding that some points of view are out of order? Who has power to determine which is the bottom-line in an environmental discussion?

IPH Response to Dept of Justice and Equality Review of the Code of Practice on the Sale and Display of Alcohol in Mixed Trading Premises

IPH responded to the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence review of the voluntary Code of Practice for the display and sale of alcohol in supermarkets, convenience stores and similar mixed trading outlets. The voluntary Code was introduced in 2008 as an alternative to the statutory rules for structural separation of alcohol products in mixed trading outlets which are set out in section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008. Interested bodies and individuals were invited to submit comments on the Compliance Report for 2011 and on the effectiveness of the voluntary approach to structural separation by 20th December 2011. The Minister said he intended to also seek the views of the Minister for Health and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality before reaching any decision on whether to bring the statutory rules in the 2008 Act into operation.