Articles
In an article for the Migalhas Portal, Fábio Medina Osório — head of Medina Osório Advogados — reflects on criminal case 623/DF and procedural delays. Read the full article below:
Introduction
The discussion on temporality in the context of criminal proceedings takes on singular importance, especially when considering the intersection between the expectation of justice and the sense of impunity that permeates today’s society. Time, in its relentless passage, becomes one of the most influential protagonists in the dynamics governing criminal accountability. It holds the silent power to reinforce the symbolic strength of existing legislation, just as it can weaken the societal bonds tied to the collective memory of crimes committed.
The recent decision in criminal case 623/DF, which dragged on for 17 years before reaching a conclusion at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), invites a deeper reflection on the often-overlooked issue of the reasonable duration of legal proceedings. In this context, the judiciary, recognizing the commission of crimes such as active and passive corruption and misappropriation of notarial revenue by public officials, handed down convictions that, although strong, also resulted in the loss of public office.
However, the sluggishness of this case prompts a broader question, one that goes beyond the immediate effects of the ruling: what is the real meaning of handing down a conviction when the memory of the wrongdoing has already faded or morphed in public perception?
In the end, this issue not only challenges legal professionals but also calls upon society to reflect on the actual effectiveness of a justice system that, by dragging its feet, may ultimately distort the very concept of justice.
Time as a Criterion for Legitimacy
The right to a reasonable duration of legal proceedings, within the Brazilian judiciary, demands careful analysis through the lens of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. These principles are also supported by various international human rights treaties, which emphasize the importance of this essential right.
It is crucial to acknowledge that, although this right is clearly defined in constitutional norms, its effectiveness is often compromised by significant obstacles. The chronic sluggishness of the judiciary stands out as one of the main challenges, characterized by a complex web of appeals procedures that resemble an endless cycle. To make matters worse, there is a deeply rooted culture that tolerates delay, particularly in cases reaching the higher courts.
Additionally, the forum privilege (foro por prerrogativa de função), which in theory should serve as institutional protection, often becomes a barrier to procedural efficiency. This hinders the swift investigation of offenses that, by nature, undermine public trust in institutions. In this scenario, it is imperative to consider the impact of such dynamics on the right to justice. Delays affect not only those directly involved but also delegitimize the judiciary as a whole, weakening the rule of law.
Reform is urgently needed to promote greater efficiency and speed in legal proceedings. By doing so, we will uphold the fundamental right to a reasonable trial duration, as provided by both our Constitution and international norms. Therefore, a critical reassessment of current judicial practices is essential in building a justice system that not only functions but is also perceived by citizens as swift and effective.
Social and Psychological Impacts of Delayed Justice
From the perspective of critical theory and legal philosophy, it is essential to recognize that time in judicial proceedings is not neutral. It directly shapes how individuals and society as a whole perceive the complexity of criminality.
For the public, the length of legal proceedings causes significant symbolic erosion. The social energy that sustains legitimate outrage dissipates in the inertia of delay. When a sentence is delivered too late, its ability to restore confidence in the legal order becomes questionable.
For the defendant, a prolonged process dilutes the meaning of punishment. A sentence handed down long after the events in question loses its capacity to rehabilitate and restore the balance between the offense and its consequences. Moreover, the accused often endures years of uncertainty, amounting to a violation of their dignity.
For the judicial system, procedural slowness breeds distrust. This distrust acts as a silent pathogen, capable of contaminating all subsequent judicial rituals and thereby eroding the legitimacy of present and future decisions.
Corruption and Criminal Accountability: When Time Favors Illegality
When it comes to crimes against public administration, the time factor becomes particularly significant. The misuse of public resources and the abuse of entrusted positions demand a prompt and exemplary response. In such cases, the objective is not merely to punish the offender but to convey to society that the social contract includes mechanisms for self-correction.
Thus, a conviction handed down 17 years after charges are filed — as seen in criminal case 623/DF — raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of criminal enforcement structures. The mere existence of a verdict is insufficient; it must be delivered within a reasonable timeframe to retain its impact and meaning. The justice system must ensure that state responses are not only issued but issued while they still resonate within the social and legal context.
Inertia over time should not be seen as a mere failure; it is a factor that undermines institutional credibility and erodes public trust in the State's ability to counter crimes that threaten fundamental social interests. Therefore, this issue demands urgent attention to review and enhance the mechanisms of justice, ensuring that social and legal values are upheld.
Reasonable Duration of Proceedings: A Functional Concept
The reasonable duration of legal proceedings should not be reduced to a fixed timeframe. Instead, it must reflect a balance between the complexity of the case and the institutional resources mobilized to resolve it. This principle acts as a pillar of fairness: protecting defendants from procedural abuses while ensuring that victims and society receive effective responses. It also grants legitimacy to the judiciary, allowing it to rule while public memory still retains the relevance of the issue.
Violating this principle is more than a mere technical error; it constitutes a breach of fundamental human rights. It disrespects the dignity of all involved and undermines the very essence of the rule of law. Thus, the importance of reasonable duration must be acknowledged not just as a legal concept, but as a key component in promoting justice and safeguarding citizens’ rights.
Summary: Time as a Measure of Justice
Reflecting on procedural speed in today’s judiciary calls for a reassessment not just of structure but also of the procedures guiding court operations. In an era where information moves rapidly, a justice system that delays risks becoming a mere spectator to social history, losing its vital relevance. A prompt judicial response is an ethical imperative for those who aim to cultivate a culture of integrity and justice.
The issue of time must be treated as fundamental — not a detail. It must be functionally integrated into decision-making. Undeniably, delay turns the judiciary into an invisible judge whose rulings often appear unjust and who ultimately fails in guaranteeing rights.
Using emblematic cases like criminal case 623/DF as examples, we must look beyond the letter of the law and examine judicial practices, entrenched habits, and the priorities that shape court administration. A justice system unable to respond promptly to society's needs not only compromises its mission but also shakes the confidence of those who seek institutional support.
Therefore, a critical reflection on procedural speed is an urgent challenge, requiring a thorough revision of the paradigms that have so far governed the judicial process.
Conclusion
The urgency of ensuring justice — especially in the context of procedural law — requires serious reflection on the principle of reasonable duration of proceedings, a right enshrined in our Constitution. The need for timely decisions is not just administrative; it is, above all, about protecting the dignity of those subject to justice and reinforcing society’s trust in institutions. Slowness in judicial processes must not be viewed merely as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as an affront to the rule of law.
Procedural delay is not just about prolonged timelines; it represents the erosion of the judiciary’s credibility. Moreover, using time as a defense strategy or a justification for organizational inefficiency has consequences beyond financial cost — it directly affects the legitimacy of judicial decisions. Treating the duration of proceedings as a discretionary concession by the State is a mistake; it is a fundamental right inherent to due process.
Ensuring procedural speed is not just a goal — it is a vital necessity for maintaining social order and preserving public trust in the institutions that form the justice system. In this light, it is urgent to adopt effective measures that ensure not only efficiency but also promptness in resolving disputes, thus delivering the justice we all seek in a democratic rule of law. Transforming this reality is crucial if we are to move toward a more just and effective judiciary that truly meets the expectations of society.
Share:
Contact Us