The closing arguments presented today (10/03) by the prosecutors of Car Wash Task Force, in Curitiba, in the record of Criminal Proceeding no. 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000, emphasize the political persecution imposed to former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as they seek his conviction without the practice of any crime or receipt of any benefit on his part in exchange for official acts performed in the condition of Head of State and Head of Government.

In the absence of any evidence of guilt, the prosecutors resorted to theories, such as “explacionismo,” in order to claim that the former President’s conviction would be possible on the basis of the “best explanation.” They drafted 408 pages of a discourse against Lula, without being able to prove the facts affirmed in the complaint, because they have never occurred.

According to the farce-like prosecution hypothesis, Lula has supposedly appointed Petrobras officers in 2003 and 2004 with the purpose of benefitting contractors and embezzling funds from contracts signed with the oil company and allegedly received, as a quid pro quo, in 2011, the dissimulated ownership of two properties.

The reality, however, is that, in addition to the inexistence of a chronological relationship, after the conduction of 35 hearings and the testimonies of 98 witnesses, it has been proven by Lula’s defense that: (i) the Petrobras officers were unanimously elected by members of the oil company’s Board of Directors; (ii) none of the various control mechanisms that existed in Petrobras and were improved during Lula’s government detected the practice of any unlawful act; (iii) none of the external audits ordered by Petrobras detected the practice of any unlawful act by Lula; (iv) neither Lula nor Lula Institute has ever requested or received the ownership or proprietorship of the real estate located at Rua Haberbeck Brandão 178, in São Paulo (SP); (v) Lula’s family rented and paid the monthly rents for apartment no. 121 of Residencial Hill House, in São Bernardo do Campo (SP).

The Federal Attorney’s Office’s closing arguments confer maximum value to the narratives told by whistleblowers, who have no credibility and received generous benefits to incriminate Lula, and disregard the testimonies – as witnesses and with obligations inherent to said condition — of former Government Ministers, former Attorney-Generals, former Federal Police Directors, members of international audit companies, among others, that demonstrated Lula’s innocence.

When tried by an impartial, unbiased, and independent judge, Lula will be acquitted in this case and in the other cases brought against him not because there was any indication of crime, but to prevent him from doing politics and moving forward with his presidential candidacy, as made clear in Brazil’s non-compliance with the decisions entered by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Cristiano Zanin Martins / Valeska T. Zanin Martins