Dino argues in his own interest for the fake-news inquiry to remain open

Flávio Dino went public on Instagram to defend the continued availability of Brazil’s fake-news inquiry. The article presents that defense as self-interested, arguing that Dino wants to preserve a tool of coercion rather than simply support Alexandre de Moraes.

“

Can a judge, whoever he may be, ‘promise’ the end of an inquiry, as if he were a candidate or seeking applause?

The column says Dino is a party with an interest in the inquiry’s “long proceedings” because he benefits from what it calls a censorial investigation. It accuses the inquiry of turning a journalistic report into a crime of persecution and of enabling violations of source confidentiality under the banner of defending democracy.

The article extends that criticism to Dino’s handling of investigations into parliamentary amendments. It says he could have declared committee amendments unconstitutional, but instead prefers to retain the power to control future wrongdoing by holding political pressure over lawmakers. It also raises, without resolving, the possibility that he has become a gatekeeper for parliamentary amendments, releasing funds according to the government’s interests in Congress.

“

Should an inquiry be archived because it has lasted a long time?

Dino asked whether a judge could “promise” the end of an inquiry, as if seeking applause or acting like a candidate. He also asked whether an inquiry should be archived because it had lasted a long time, and who should decide what counts as a long proceeding. The column sets those questions against Gilmar Mendes’s earlier statement that indefinite or unlimited judicial proceedings damage effective legal protection and human dignity.

“

And who decides what counts as a long proceeding? Personal opinions?

The article argues that personal judgments by Moraes, Dias Toffoli, Dino and Mendes have helped sustain an inquiry whose indefinite scope serves what it describes as arbitrary power. It portrays the dispute as part of a wider internal conflict within the Supreme Federal Court.

“

The indefinite or unlimited duration of a judicial process affects not only the idea of effective judicial protection, but also the protection of human dignity.