STF authorizes inquiry to investigate senator’s speeches about Joice Hasselmann’s injuries | Policy

Justice Rosa Weber, of the Supreme Court (STF), authorized this Thursday (26) the opening of an inquiry to investigate the conduct of Senator Styvenson Valentim (Pode-RN).

Rosa Weber responded to a request presented by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR). The body wants to find out if the senator committed a crime against the honor of Congresswoman Joice Hasselmann (non-SP party) in statements on the internet.

In July, Joice Hasselmann sued the Senate Legislative Police after presenting fractures to her face and body.

In a live broadcast on social networks, Styvenson commented on the matter and reportedly said: “That one, one of two: or two of five hundred [em um gesto, Styvenson leva as mãos à cabeça, fazendo chifres] or a very big career [inspira como se cheirasse droga]. Then she got crazy and that’s it… she left hitting the house”.

On the 13th, the Civil Police of the Federal District concluded that the deputy fell, possibly as a result of the effects of sleeping pills (see details in the video below).

Forensics concludes that Joice has fallen, possibly under the effect of sleeping pills

Forensics concludes that Joice has fallen, possibly under the effect of sleeping pills

In the decision that authorized the opening of the investigation, Rosa Weber stated that there are minimal elements that justify the opening of an investigation to determine whether there was a crime.

The minister authorized the senator and deputy to testify about the facts. The inquiry has an initial period of 90 days.

In the request to open an inquiry, deputy attorney general Humberto Jacques de Medeiros stated that it is necessary to verify the context of the statements and whether they are in the context of parliamentary immunity, that is, whether the speeches are related to the performance of the mandate.

“The nature of these statements implies, in theory, the practice of crime against honor, and it is necessary to elucidate the context of such expressions in order to understand their connection with the exercise of the mandate and their scope for material parliamentary immunity,” he said.