Although Lula said this Saturday (9) that there was “no reason” for Putin to be arrested in Brazil, when he arrives in the country in November 2024 for the G20 summit, the Brazilian government could be held internationally responsible if she does not comply with the arrest warrant against the Russian President in force. This is because Brazil is one of the signatories of the Rome Statute, which created the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998, and therefore has an international obligation to cooperate with the body to investigate and judge war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to experts heard People’s GazetteLula’s speech was more rhetorical and marked his position in the conflict, as in practice the president has no legal authority to prevent an arrest.
In March, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin because he was “allegedly” responsible for the illegal deportation and transport of Ukrainian minors from Ukraine to Russia, a war crime under the Rome Statute. Since then, the Russian president has not attended international events, such as the BRICS meeting in South Africa last month and the G20 summit held this weekend in New Delhi, the capital of India. Since Russia has not signed the agreement, there is no risk for him of being arrested on his own territory.
In an interview with the Indian broadcaster Firstpost this Saturday, Lula said that he would invite the Russian president to the group’s meeting in Brazil next year and that he saw no reason for his arrest here. “In Brazil we like music, carnival, football, but we like peace and we want to treat people well. So I think Putin can come to Brazil quietly. “I can say that if I become president of Brazil, there will be no reason for him to be arrested,” he said.
Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution states: “Brazil submits to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.” “If a State Party, contrary to the provisions of this Statute, refuses a request for cooperation from the Court, thereby preventing it from exercising its powers and functions under this Statute “, the Court may prepare a report and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or to the Security Council, if the latter has referred the matter to the Court,” completes the text.
The President cannot prevent the arrest
According to Alexandre Pires, professor of international relations at Ibmec SP, Lula’s stance in favor of preventing Putin’s arrest represents “interference in the federal police, which is responsible for this type of implementation of cooperation with the international criminal.” Court.” Nevertheless, he predicts that the executive will be able to “gain time” about the current arrest warrant against the Russian through formal questions from the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), the Ministry of Justice and the PF itself to the ICC. “It is possible that in this confusion, if the Russian president lands in Brazil and there is a question, by the time he gets an answer from the court, he will have already left without Brazil necessarily violating the agreement,” he says.
Another possibility, Pires believes, is that Brazil is deterred from the idea of welcoming Putin by international partners such as the United States or the European Union. “This is done in order not to set precedents and further weaken the international court, which already has few means to implement its decisions, especially with regard to war crimes, where the Russian president comes into play, including the involvement of children,” he says.
Journalist and professor of international relations at Ibmec, Carlo Cauti, agrees that Lula cannot prevent Putin’s arrest, which must be enforced by the country’s judiciary as soon as he lands on Brazilian soil. “Unless we assume that Lula is in control of the judiciary, that’s how big his influence on the STF is,” he says.
However, if it decides to violate the ICC decision, experts say Brazil will not face sanctions or immediate expulsion, but rather a trial for breach of contract. “That’s called international responsibility. A country that fails to honor a treaty ultimately fails to meet its obligations and can be held accountable by other countries. “It is bad for Brazil, it has never happened that a signatory country does not respect international treaties, so much so that Putin did not travel to South Africa, which is a signatory country,” he says.
rhetoric
Economist and businessman Igor Lucena, a doctoral student in international relations at the University of Lisbon, sees Lula’s speech as “much more a proRussian rhetoric from the Brazilian government” than a practical solution, as it disregards the agreement with the ICC “it.” would be very negative for the country both internally and externally.”
“It would call into question free trade agreements, such as the negotiations that Brazil is conducting with the European Union. If Brazil does not accept such a rule, the likelihood that agreements will be violated is very high and this would jeopardize credibility,” he says. Lucena clarifies that the recent acquisition of images of the alleged aggression suffered by Alexandre de Moraes in Rome was carried out through an international agreement. In other words, Brazil’s lack of cooperation with the ICC would result in difficulties in accessing other types of information and future assistance.
Lucena reiterates that there is no way to “relativize” the invasion of one country onto another, as Russia did in the case of Ukraine. In this sense, welcoming Putin would not be a peaceful stance, as Lula defends. “The relativization of international conflicts encourages other actors to solve their problems through militarization,” he says.
Opposition reaction
Opposition politicians responded to Lula’s speech, claiming the president had moved away from democratic principles and embraced authoritarian positions. Senator Sergio Moro (PodemosPR) said that the PT member’s comments about Putin showed that “Lula’s Brazil is internationally linked to autocracies, not to Western democracies.” For former MP Deltan Dallagnol in the Lula government, Brazil is a friend of bloodthirsty dictators.
Federal MP Kim Kataguiri (UniãoSP) wrote on ” free”.