Gilmar Mendes shakes up Lava Jato by annulling decisions made by Moro and Dallagnol.

The recent decision by the Minister and Dean of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Gilmar Mendes, has shaken the foundations of Operation Lava Jato, revealing serious irregularities in the actions of former judge Sérgio Moro and prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol. In his vote issued on August 30, 2024, Mendes aligned himself with the case rapporteur, Minister Dias Toffoli, to annul all decisions made by the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, which was at the time under Moro's command. Mendes did not hold back in his criticism of Moro and Dallagnol, accusing them of using "illegal and abusive methods." These claims result from a review of the conversations between the two, which, according to the minister, show a clear effort to undermine the defense rights of businessman Marcelo Odebrecht. This finding not only calls into question the legitimacy of the judicial actions in the case but also highlights a troubling pattern of collusion between the judiciary and the prosecution. Operation Lava Jato, which uncovered a vast network of corruption, had focused on the illicit practices of Odebrecht, where bribery of politicians and public officials was the norm to secure contracts. In this context, it is imperative to remember that Marcelo Odebrecht was arrested in 2015 and has been at the center of one of the most publicized investigations in Brazil's recent history. However, the recent revelation regarding the lack of impartiality of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba raises serious doubts about the validity of the convictions that were issued. Gilmar Mendes emphasized in his vote that the actions of Moro and Dallagnol not only violated Odebrecht's rights but also destroyed the fundamental impartiality of the criminal process. This type of behavior, according to Mendes, is not a mere isolated error but a troubling indication of a judicial system straying from its function of justice. The conversations that monitored Odebrecht's defense are a clear example of a blending of roles that must be absolutely separated to ensure a fair trial. For his part, Minister Dias Toffoli had already echoed these concerns, stating that both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judiciary had ignored basic principles of due process. The annulment of the decisions of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba aligns with Odebrecht's defense, which argues that his case is representative of a broader pattern of irregularities in Operation Lava Jato. The Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, has appealed this decision, asking for it to be reconsidered or for the case to be brought before the full STF. However, Mendes and Toffoli's stance suggests that the Court is willing to maintain its focus on upholding legality and impartiality in judicial processes. Meanwhile, Marcelo Odebrecht remains a central figure in the context of corruption in Brazil. His plea bargain has provided crucial information, including alleged meetings with high-profile political figures such as Michel Temer. Nevertheless, the status of his plea bargain remains intact despite the annulment of the convictions. This presents a complex scenario where the fight against corruption must be balanced with the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused. The situation is a clear reminder that justice cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of outcomes. Operation Lava Jato, while it has uncovered a series of corruption scandals, now faces profound questioning about how it was conducted. The lack of impartiality and violations of due process are a stain that could delegitimize not only individual cases but the entire operation as a whole. Indeed, the controversy surrounding Lava Jato raises questions about the future of justice in Brazil. As these irregularities are unraveled, public trust in the judicial system could be seriously affected. The path to restoring that trust will be long and will require not only a review of the cases but also deep reflection on the principles that should guide justice in a country that has been struck by corruption. The wait for a definitive resolution in these cases could be a torturous process, but it is an essential step toward rebuilding a judicial system that works for all and not just for some.