Defense of former Bolsonaro aide requests revocation of arrest

Colonel Marcelo Câmara's defense asked the Federal Supreme Court (STF) this Monday (23) to revoke the preventive detention ordered by Minister Alexandre de Moraes. The military man is a defendant in the criminal action investigating an alleged coup attempt in 2022 and was one of the main advisors to former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL).

Attorney Eduardo Kuntz, who represents the colonel, denied any violation of the precautionary measures. Câmara was arrested on the 18th after Kuntz informed the Supreme Court about conversations with Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid, the whistleblower in the case, during the investigations.

In his decision, Moraes considered that Câmara tried to obtain confidential information about the agreement and failed to comply with the prohibition on speaking to other suspects, including through third parties. During the custody hearing, the colonel denied having spoken to Cid.

"Since I was released on May 16, I have tried to follow all the precautionary measures imposed on me, including the one I am being accused of breaking. I have not spoken to the collaborator, not even through third parties," said Câmara.

He had been arrested previously, but was released on provisional release on May 16, 2024, following the imposition of precautionary measures. Kuntz argued that contact with Cid ended in March 2024, therefore, before the decision that imposed measures other than imprisonment on the colonel.

“It should be noted that on the occasions when contacts occurred between the whistleblower and this lawyer (again, on the exclusive initiative of the co-defendant Mauro César Barbosa Cid) there was no restriction related to the inability to communicate between the parties, so there is no talk of non-compliance with any measure imposed by this eminent rapporteur on the part of the appellant”, said the lawyer.

Moraes also ordered the opening of an investigation against Câmara and Kuntz for alleged obstruction of justice due to their contacts with Cid. Last week, the lawyer classified Moraes' decision as an "academic example of demoralization, violation and criminalization" of the prerogatives of the legal profession.

In the appeal, Kuntz highlighted that preventive detention “violates the principle of individualization, taking on the contours of the adoption of objective criminal liability”.

“If there is any defendant who failed to comply with Your Excellency's order to establish contact with the other defendants — especially using another person's profile or even a false profile, which must be investigated — this person is certainly not the Appellant [Chamber],” he pointed out.