THE CORUMBIARA CASE

FINAL ALLEGATIONS - DEFENSE - [concepts] [full]

1. The defendants Claudenilson Alves, Luiz Carlos de Almeida, Daniel da Silva Furtado, José Emílio da Silva Evangelista, Vilson Luiz Pedon, Luiz Carlos Fernandes, Airton Ramos de Morais and Moisés de Oliveira Lima, represented by their lawyers Mr. Carlos E.C. Pietrobon and Mrs. Inês Brandi Pietrobon, have argued that:
"The evidence that has been gathered during the instruction, by testimony, document and investigative expertise, is ample toward of the innocence of those accused, from the respectable denouncement to the final allegations presented for worthy Parquet, deserving, therefore that the defendants be freed of such charges (unpronounced)."
There is no proof in the action, not even the slightest indication of the defendants' responsibility in this case. No eyewitness has been offered or has affirmed that the defendants were responsible for the gunshots that took the lives of the victims.
The defendants practiced no violence or by anyone else belonging to the Military Police Force and even less was any of the defenseless trespassers executed at the point-blank range, or after they had surrendered. Those peoples were killed during the exchange of gunshots in the guerrilla warfare that they faced.
The defendants, in strict legal duty, were grouped together with yours subordinates to execute a valid, opportune and effective judicial order of the honorable judicature.
There was no direct or even subjective intent on behalf of the defendants to execute or to kill the victims. Those events occurred beyond their will.

It is their plea that the accusation be considered unfounded and not be denounced."

2. Geraldo João Rodrigues, also represented by the above has argued, in his defense that:
"That the incident was a lamentable and imprudent accident, which resembles a delict of light corporal lesion, for which guilt is characterized as imprudence and so being, is only admitted as mere supposition.
As such, the defendant had no subjective intent to shot the victim to kill and, being merely accidental, beyond his will, there is no reason to speak of attempt, since the interruption indicated makes reference to the will of the agent and to his behavior. As such, there not being the will, there was no the deceit which certainly did not occur in the case in screen, thus being impossible to persist on the classification of the qualified homicide as was attempted.
It is his plea that respectable accusation be considered unfounded requesting the disqualification of the imputed charge of attempted qualified homicide, changed to delict of guilty corporal lesion.

3. Vitório Régis Mena Mendes, through the lawyer Mr. Emiliano de Oliveira, make his defense in this way:

"There is no evidence of proof that any crime of homicide was committed by the defendant Mena Mendes.
The acts practiced were in strict obligation of performing the legal duty."

4. José Hélio Caseiro Pichá e Mauro Ronaldo Flores Correia, represented by the lawyer Mr. Lido Luiz Chaves Barbosa, presented their defense, in this way:

"The defendants did not have any participation in the deaths of the victims, since the participation of the Special Task Forces (Companhia de Operações Especiais), in the event, was reduced only to give technical assistance to the components of the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police of Vilhena, responsible for the mission of effecting the judicial order of reintegration of the area so invaded.

The accusation against these denounced does not have any support from the recorders, there is no indication that can simulate conviction that that can stimulate conviction that the said parties are authors of any homicide the."

5. José Ventura Pereira, through of the lawyers Mr. Carlos Eduardo Chaves Pietrobon and Mrs. Inês Brandi Pietrobon, offered defense in this sense:

"...There is no subjective intent on behalf of the defendant in participating, to favor, to allow, to assent, to collaborate or to incite its subordinates to remove supposed homicide victims, to shoot at people who were already dominated and subjugated and, those homicides were out of his will there is nothing to be said of the intend typifying, since interruption indicated makes reference to the will of the agent and his behavior, necessarily, demonstrating the incidence of the deceit, which certainly did not occur in the present case."
...The defendant did not collaborate with the supposed cruelties, not even from the initial stage of orienting the troop on its proper conduct and even less he so eye-witnessed the pseudo excesses that occurred, because in the exercise of his the command, in the most common form which is in the rearguard, was present only after the conflict had ended, without inciting, corroborating, omitting himself or even influencing or participating in the exchange of gunfire which unfortunately resulted in the death of several people..."

6. Cícero Pereira Leite Neto, Adelino Ramos and Claudenir Gilberto Ramos, in final allegations, in synthese, affirmed that:

"...The set of proofs from expertise investigation, such as documents and witnesses contained in the reports do not attest the responsibility of the crimes imputed to the defendants..."