02/06/2008 - 08:53
DECISION / Gol Accident Air traffic controllers will respond to two distinct trials
The vice-president of the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ), minister Cesar Asfor Rocha, denied continuance to the appeal with which the Federal Prosecutors' Office (MPF) tried to have the Supreme Court (STF) review the decision that the air traffic controllers involved in the episode of the accident with the Gol plane in 2006 should undergo two distinct trials, one before the Military Courts – for the military crimes - and another in the Federal Courts - for common crimes. The decision that Prosecutors' Office is appealing was taken by the Third Chamber of the STJ, which understood that no conflict of jurisdiction existed to be resolved. This because the four air traffic controllers are responding to charges in the Federal Court of Mato Grosso and in the Federal Military Judicial Circumscription in the Federal District, for the aviation accident which caused the crash of the Gol Boeing in the municipality of Peixoto de Azevedo (MT), but with charges that are distinct. Air traffic controllers Felipe Santos dos Reis, Jomarcelo Fernandes dos Santos, Lucivando Tibúrcio de Alencar and Leandro José dos Santos de Barros were indicted, in the Federal Courts, for the crime of an attack on the safety of air transportation, defined in a different manner in military legislation. However in the Federal Military Judicial Circumscription of the Federal District, Felipe, Lucivando and Leandro were accused for the crime of failure to observe a law, regulation or instruction, foreseen exclusively in military law. Further, in the same hearing court, Jomarcelo answers for negligent homicide, which is defined identically in common penal law and in military law. In this way, the crime ascribed to him should submitted to military jurisdiction, for having been practiced, according to the indictment, by an on-duty member of the military against civilians. Minister Cesar Asfor Rocha, on judging the request, understood the appeal to be inadmissible because the constitutional dispositions and requirements indicated as violated were not previously questioned, which brought the application of Supreme Court Súmula nº 283, which bans the admission of extraordinary appeals when the Federal question raised had not been aired in the decision under appeal. Besides this, the minister emphasized that other legal options had not been proposed to correct possible errors in the decision being appealed.