Criteria for reception of decisions on the crimes of contempt of the interamerican human rights system in the superior court of justice in light of the external conventionality control
The article deals, in the light of conventional control, with the receipt of the recommendation of the Inter-American Human Rights System to decriminalize crimes of contempt by the Superior Court of Justice. The analysis is limited to two features that guide the Court’s positions: Special Appeal 1,6...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Seqüência (Florianópolis, Brazil) Brazil), 2019-01, Vol.39 (80), p.179-201 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | ger ; por |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The article deals, in the light of conventional control, with the receipt of the recommendation of the Inter-American Human Rights System to decriminalize crimes of contempt by the Superior Court of Justice. The analysis is limited to two features that guide the Court’s positions: Special Appeal 1,640,084/SP and Habeas Corpus 379,269/MS. The method is inductive and bibliographic review and documentary analysis are used as research techniques. It is concluded that the Superior Court of Justice considered only decisions in which the State was party to the litigation, which rules out the reception through the mechanism of external conventionality control. https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/issue/view/2737/showToc/showToc [Portuguese Abstract] O artigo trata, à luz do controle de convencionalidade, da recepção da recomendação do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos de descriminalizar os crimes de desacato pelo Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Restringe-se à análise de dois recursos orientadores dos posicionamentos do Tribunal: o Recurso Especial n. 1.640.084/SP e o Habeas Corpus n. 379.269/ MS. O método é indutivo e são utilizadas a revisão bibliográfica e a análise documental como técnicas de pesquisa. Conclui-se que o Superior Tribunal de Justiça considerou apenas decisões nas quais o Estado tenha sido parte no litígio, o que descarta a recepção via mecanismo do controle de convencionalidade externo. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0101-9562 2177-7055 |
DOI: | 10.5007/2177-7055.2018v39n80p179 |