Cannon Shot

PART I: CANNON SHOT TO KILL A BIRD
How a human rights defender became a target of Lawfare

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is investigating allegations of lawfare and torture against human rights activists from Brazilian NGO IBEPAC who reported irregularities in the Court of Justice of the State of Sergipe. The Pelicano Human Rights Network of Brazil, which includes the activists, claims that crimes were committed to incriminate them for their work.

Among the reported irregularities that support corruption denunciation:

Receiving pay without working: Marlon Sérgio Santana de Abreu Lima, the father of Justice Iolanda Santos Guimarães’ children, received a salary without working for over 15 years at the Court of Justice of Sergipe. As Marlon was in the same situation Antônio Henrique Buarque Maciel and Estelita Nunes Oliveira. These actions are being defended by Judge Iolanda Santos Guimarães.

Accumulation of positions: Marlon allegedly held three public positions simultaneously at the Sergipe Court, which is illegal.

Forged evidence and fabrication of facts: The activists accuse Justice Iolanda Santos Guimarães and her assistants, Fábio Eloy Meneses Lobão, Rodrigo Ribeiro Emídio, Cleison Bruno Lima Machado, and Lineker Matheus Rocha da Silva, of forging evidence and fabricating facts to incriminate them.

Torture: The activists claim to have been subjected to psychological and moral torture by Justice Iolanda Santos Guimarães and her assistants, Fábio Eloy Meneses Lobão, Rodrigo Ribeiro Emídio, Cleison Bruno Lima Machado, and Lineker Matheus Rocha da Silva.

HOW LAWFARE PRACTICES WORK

The American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) guarantees the right to due process, as Articles 8 and 25 outline. Juliana Gomes Antonangelo alleged that the Brazilian State failed to uphold this right by imposing restrictions and administrative procedures that did not respect the principles of legality, proportionality, and fair defense.

Aspects	Description of Violation	Legal Basis	Commentary
Persecution through administrative processes	These processes violate the principle of due process, as the appellant was not granted a full and fair defense.	Articles 8 and 25 of the ACHR	These processes violate the principle of due process, as the appellant was not granted full and fair defense.
Retroactive application of norms	Juliana’s appointment was annulled based on accusations of nepotism, which were not regulated at the time of her appointment. This demonstrates an arbitrary use of norms to justify discriminatory actions ([DEFESA BRASIL 1555239], [MANIFESTAÇÃO DEFESA BRA…]).	Principles of legality and non-retroactivity	The retroactive and selective application of norms violates the right to defense and suggests discriminatory practices.
Publication of defamatory information	Juliana claimed she was publicly exposed through statements on official websites, without proper context, which affected her reputation and dignity ([inicial oea], [DEFESA BRASIL 1555239]).	Articles 11 and 14 of the ACHR	Public and negative exposure of the victim constitutes a violation of the right to privacy and honor.