STJ orders immediate execution of sentence in a closed regime in Brazil for Robinho for rape in Italy
The Special Court of the STJ deliberated this Wednesday on the possibility of Robinho, sentenced in Italy to 9 years in prison for rape, serving his sentence in Brazil, as requested by the Italian authorities.
Robinho and his friend, Ricardo Falco were sentenced to a sentence of nine years - Photo Reproduction/Tony Gentile/Reuters
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) determined this Wednesday (20) by a majority of 9 votes to 2 that former football player Robinho must serve his sentence for the crime of rape in Brazil. Furthermore, it was decided that the execution of the sentence must take place immediately. Robinho's defense announced its intention to appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF). Furthermore, they stated that they will seek for him to wait in freedom for the response to the appeals. The responsibility for carrying out the immediate arrest will lie with the authorities in Santos, where Robinho is located.
Case Context
The former striker for the Brazilian national team and several European clubs, including AC Milan, was convicted in 2017 for participating in a gang rape in a nightclub in the city of Milan, in 2013. The conviction, handed down by the ninth criminal section of the Court of Milan, established a nine-year prison sentence for Robinho and his friend, Ricardo Falco, both accused of sexually abusing an Albanian woman. After the conviction, Robinho and Falco appealed the decision, maintaining their innocence and claiming that the sexual act was consensual.
However, in 2020, the Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the prison sentence in January 2023.Almost a month later, on February 16, an international arrest warrant was issued. At the end of the same year, the Italian Ministry of Justice requested the extradition of Robinho, however the request was refused by the Government, since the country does not extradite its own citizens. The Italian authorities then appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) so that the sentence could be approved and take effect in Brazil.
Voting of Ministers
The ministers' votes were in favor of serving the sentence. The rapporteur, Minister Francisco Falcão, together with eight other ministers, expressed their understanding that There is no constitutional impediment to the approval of the execution of the sentence. The sentence was confirmed by the Milan Court, the competent authority, and the conviction has now become final. The defendant, Robinho, was not tried in absentia in Italy; was duly represented, as stated by the minister. The latter defended the transfer of the sentence to Brazil, arguing that the individual's nationality should not result in impunity.
He also highlighted that non-approval could trigger diplomatic complications between Brazil and Italy. The STJ minister continued to emphasize that denying the transfer of the sentence simply based on Brazilian nationality could result in serious ramifications for the relationship between the two countries with regard to the implementation of the treaty. For minister Raul Araújo, who disagreed with the rapporteur, Robinho's condition as a native Brazilian prevents him from serving a sentence in Brazil for a conviction in Italy.
"We cannot, in my opinion, even seriously consider this approval to carry out the execution of the foreign sentence in Brazil. Why? Because we are dealing with a native Brazilian citizen", he statedAraújo.
The Judgment
Before reading the votes, the parties presented their arguments orally. Robinho's lawyer, José Eduardo Rangel de Alckmin, maintained the position that the STJ should reject the request for approval and suggested that Robinho's process be conducted in Brazil. He emphasized the importance of this type of process being handled within the country, respecting the Brazil-Italy cooperation treaty. He highlighted that this is not about impunity, but rather Robinho's right to be tried in Brazil, a guarantee of every Brazilian citizen.
Hindemburgo Chateaubriand, representative of the Federal Public Ministry, explained the reasons why the MPF defends that the sentence be served in Brazil, highlighting the transfer of the execution of the sentence recognized by various treaties and the application of Brazilian law to Brazilians who commit crimes abroad. Chateaubriand also cited excerpts from telephone interceptions carried out by the Italian courts that served as evidence against Robinho. Furthermore, representatives of two entities admitted as "amicus curiae" also gave oral arguments, providing input and opinions to the STJ ministers.
The facts resulted in a criminal conviction, and according to Brazilian law, this justifies serving the sentence in Brazil, without violating national sovereignty. The UBM (Brazilian Union of Women) recommended Robinho's arrest, arguing that he had already demonstrated a propensity to escape. On the other hand, lawyer Marcio Guedes, from the National Criminal Law Association (Anacrim), agreed with Robinho's defense and argued against his arrest. Meanwhile, lawyer Carlos Nicodemos, from the Brazilian Union of Women, a feminist organization, defended the approval of the Italian sentence and Robinho's immediate arrest.
