ANA SÁ PEREIRA

.

Pandemias e pandemónios, 

as extraordinárias desventuras

 da Justiça portuguesa

Não pode continuar a fazer-se a investigação criminal colocando em causa o sigilo profissional.

𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙤́𝙣𝙞𝙤 𝙋𝙞𝙘̧𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙖, 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙚 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖, 𝙚𝙢 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖 𝙖𝙤 “𝙀𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤” 𝙚 𝙖̀ 𝙎𝙄𝘾 𝙖𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙪 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙜𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙖 “… 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖́ 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙤 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙨”, “𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙖 𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙞́𝙙𝙖“ 𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚, 𝙚𝙢 𝙋𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙜𝙖𝙡, “𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙚́𝙢 𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙖 𝙣𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖”.

𝘾𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤, 𝙤 𝙖𝙧 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖́ 𝙞𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙖́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙣𝙤 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙖 𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙇𝙞𝙨𝙗𝙤𝙖, 𝙪𝙢 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙪́𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙖 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡, 𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙚́, 𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖, 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙖 𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙞́𝙙𝙖, 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙖́𝙫𝙚𝙡. 

𝙊𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞́𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙨 𝙙𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙚 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙚𝙞𝙭𝙖𝙧 𝙙𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙞𝙭𝙖𝙧 𝙖 𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙤𝙨, 𝙣𝙤 𝙢𝙞́𝙣𝙞𝙢𝙤, 𝙖𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙤𝙨.

𝘼 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙖́ 𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙖 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖 𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙤 𝙅𝙪𝙞𝙯 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡, 𝙘𝙪𝙟𝙖 𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚, 𝙖𝙤 𝙣𝙞́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙙𝙖 𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙧𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙖 𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙇𝙚𝙞𝙨, 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖 𝙣𝙖 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖 𝙙𝙖 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙅𝙪𝙞́𝙯𝙚𝙨, 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙤-𝙨𝙚, 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙢, 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙞𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙘 𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙏𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙖𝙢, 𝙥𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞́𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙨, 𝙖̀ 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙖 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖́𝙧𝙞𝙖 𝙫𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙣𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙤 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙧𝙞́𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙤.

𝙀, 𝙣𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚 𝙖 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙚𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙨, 𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙯𝙚𝙧 𝙖 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙚 𝙤 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙪 𝙙𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙙𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙫𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤, 𝙣𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙖 𝙖𝙤𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙪𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤́𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙨 𝙊́𝙧𝙜𝙖̃𝙤𝙨, 𝙚 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙩𝙖𝙧 𝙖 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖́-𝙡𝙤, 𝙨𝙤𝙗 𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙣𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙞𝙭𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙧 𝙨𝙤𝙗 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙞𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤.

𝙉𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙖𝙧 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙯𝙚𝙧-𝙨𝙚 𝙖 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙚𝙢 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙖 𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡.

𝙉𝙖̃𝙤 𝙚́ 𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙖́𝙫𝙚𝙡, 𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙉𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙞́𝙙𝙖, 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙧-𝙨𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙪𝙢 𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙤́𝙧𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙖𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙚 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙨, 𝙨𝙚𝙢 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙤 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙟𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙙𝙤 𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙪𝙭𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙤 𝘾𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙪𝙢 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚.

𝙀 𝙖 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙢𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙝𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙘𝙞́𝙣𝙞𝙤 𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙖 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙞 𝙪𝙢 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝘼𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙤 𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙘𝙖.

𝙀́ 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙗𝙞́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙟𝙖𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙤 𝙏𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙝𝙖𝙨, 𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙤 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚́𝙧𝙞𝙤 𝙋𝙪́𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙤, 𝙚𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙨 𝙚𝙢 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝘼𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙤𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙪𝙨 𝘾𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙨, 𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙟𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙖𝙡. 

𝙀́ 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙤 𝙣𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙖 𝙚𝙨𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙧 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙯 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙢𝙪́𝙣𝙪𝙨 𝙙𝙖 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙖𝙪𝙭𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙧 𝙤𝙨 𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙖̃𝙤𝙨 𝙣𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙪𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙞́𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙨, 𝙚 𝙖𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙢, 𝙖 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖́ 𝙖 𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙖𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙖 𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙚 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖́, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙤, 𝙖 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧 𝙤 𝙗𝙤𝙢 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙀𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝘿𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙯𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚, 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤.

𝙉𝙤 𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙤 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙖́𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙤, 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙞́ 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞́𝙘𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤, 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙚 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧 𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡, 𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙨, 𝙖𝙡𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙚 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤́𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨, 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙖̃𝙤𝙨.

𝙀́ 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚, 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙖 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙚́ 𝙘𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙖̀ 𝙗𝙤𝙖 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖, 𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙚́ 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖́𝙧𝙞𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙖 𝙊𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨, 𝙚𝙣𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙪́𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙖 𝙖 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚, 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙨 𝙈𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙢 𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨, 𝙚𝙣𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙖 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙢 𝙟𝙪𝙧𝙞́𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖 𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙖 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙤 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙪́𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙨 𝙙𝙖 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡.

𝙏𝙪𝙙𝙤 𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙞𝙭𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙤, 𝙤𝙗𝙫𝙞𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚, 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙤 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙢 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙪𝙢 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞́𝙘𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙖̃𝙤, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙢 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙟𝙪𝙡𝙜𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙧𝙤 𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙖̃𝙤.

𝘼𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙢 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙤 𝙤𝙨 𝙈𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙢 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤, 𝙨𝙚𝙢 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙧 𝙖 𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙙𝙖 𝙚𝙧𝙖 𝙙𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙧𝙖́𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙖 𝙚 𝙛𝙖́𝙘𝙞𝙡, 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙧 𝙤𝙨 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙨 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙗 𝙤 𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙞́𝙣𝙞𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙟𝙖́𝙫𝙚𝙡 “𝙟𝙪𝙡𝙜𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧”, 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙖 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙣𝙪𝙢 “𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖́𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙤”, 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙖̃𝙤 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙞𝙧𝙘𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙖̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖 𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙙𝙤 𝙖̀ 𝙣𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙖 𝘿𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙖.

𝙀́, 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙨, 𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤, 𝙪𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙯𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙖 𝙙𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖, 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙖 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙨 𝙟𝙤𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙨, 𝙣𝙖 𝙖̂𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙖 𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙨, 𝙙𝙚𝙞𝙭𝙚𝙢 𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙧 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙞𝙧𝙤𝙨 𝙖 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙤𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙚 𝙫𝙖̃𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙧, 𝙢𝙚𝙨𝙢𝙤 𝙚𝙢 𝙛𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙢 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙤𝙨 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙨 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙖 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖̃𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙗 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙡𝙤.

𝙏𝙪𝙙𝙤 𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙖̃𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞́𝙫𝙤𝙘𝙤𝙨, 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙚𝙢 𝙤𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙨 – 𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙩𝙚́ 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙖 𝙗𝙤𝙢 – 𝙢𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙢𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚, 𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙢 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙤.

𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙖́ 𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙖 𝙖𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙢 𝙣𝙖 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙖𝙢 𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙤̃𝙚𝙢 𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖 𝙖 𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙙𝙤𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 “𝙨𝙖𝙪́𝙙𝙚” 𝙚 𝙙𝙖 “𝙨𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘̧𝙖” 𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙙𝙤𝙨, 𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙖𝙢𝙗𝙚́𝙢 𝙪𝙢 𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙡 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙝𝙖𝙧 𝙣𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙤 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙤 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚 “𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙤” 𝙣𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙙𝙚.

𝙈𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙤 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧, 𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖, 𝙣𝙖̃𝙤 𝙚́ 𝙖𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙝𝙖́𝙫𝙚𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙧 𝙣𝙤 “𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙤 𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚̂𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖” 𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙢 𝙥𝙤𝙧 “𝙡𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙧 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙖̃𝙤𝙨”, 𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙚𝙢 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚́𝙧𝙞𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝘼𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘̧𝙖̃𝙤 𝙙𝙖 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘̧𝙖, 𝙨𝙖𝙗𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙨, 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙙𝙚 𝙝𝙖́ 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙨, 𝙤 𝙦𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖.

* Advogada

IN "O JORNAL ECONÓMICO"
13/03/20

.