AI Opinion

PART IV: I, Robot
How artificial intelligence analyzes Brazilian Justice denialism

Completed Analysis

Opinion for the Brazilian Institute of Political, Administrative, and Constitutional Studies – IBEPAC and Juliana Gomes Antonangelo
Subject: Analysis of the defense presented by Brazil in comparison to the allegations of Juliana Gomes Antonangelo and the Brazilian Institute of Political, Administrative, and Constitutional Studies – IBEPAC.

1. Introduction

This opinion aims to analyze the defense presented by Brazil in response to petition P-1067-19, filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in comparison to the initial allegations of Juliana Gomes Antonangelo and IBEPAC.

2. Analysis of Brazil’s Defense

The defense presented by Brazil, anonymously, without signature or identification of the responsible authority, argues the inadmissibility of the petition based on several arguments, which will be analyzed below:

• IACHR’s Incompetence to analyze the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (CIPPT): Brazil argues that the IACHR lacks the competence to analyze the CIPPT. However, Federal Decree No. 98.386/89 promulgated the CIPPT in Brazil, demonstrating the Brazilian State’s responsibility regarding this Convention.
• Non-exhaustion of internal remedies: Brazil claims the petition is inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of internal remedies. However, the allegations by IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that internal remedies were pursued, including originating actions in the Federal Supreme Court (STF), which were not reviewed within a reasonable time, as required by the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).
• Failure to observe the six-month deadline: Brazil argues that the petition was submitted outside the six-month deadline. However, IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that the deadline does not apply when there is no due process of law for protecting rights, as is the case for interim officers of extrajudicial notaries, who have no right to defense and contradiction in administrative procedures.
• Lack of presentation of facts that characterize ACHR violations: Brazil claims that the petition does not present facts that characterize ACHR violations. However, IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that the decisions to remove Juliana were based on non-existent irregularities, fabricated based on forged evidence and that the Brazilian State did not justify the discriminatory treatment given to her compared to other interim officers.
• Selective nepotism: Brazil argues that Juliana’s removal complied with the legal order, including nepotism prohibition. However, IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that the nepotism prohibition was applied selectively and retroactively since Juliana’s appointment occurred in 2014, and the nepotism prohibition in notary offices only took effect in 2018, according to the Brazilian State itself.
• Sentencing without legal provision: Brazil argues that Juliana’s removal in Rio Grande do Sul complied with the legal order due to a prior administrative conviction in Sergipe. However, IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that the conviction led to a penalty of delegation loss, without legal provision for interim officers, and that the Brazilian State contradicted itself by stating that Juliana’s dismissal did not require administrative proceedings since it was a precarious position.
• Publication of defamatory news: Brazil argues that the published news about Juliana’s removal did not constitute an abuse of power, as it aimed to inform the public about occupants of public interest positions. However, IBEPAC and Juliana demonstrate that the news contained false information intended to damage Juliana’s image and honor, as well as that of her husband, both of whom are human rights activists.

3. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that IBEPAC and Juliana Gomes Antonangelo successfully demonstrated the occurrence of serious human rights violations, as shown in the table below:

Human Rights Violations	Description
Psychological torture and discriminatory treatment	Omission by the Brazilian State in investigating acts of psychological torture and discriminatory treatment given to Juliana compared to other interim officers.
Denial of access to justice and fair legal order	Lack of disciplinary administrative process for interim officers of extrajudicial notaries, which prevents the exercise of the right to defense and contradiction.
Failure to review appeals within a reasonable time	Originating actions filed by Juliana with the STF were not reviewed within a reasonable time, constituting a denial of access to justice.
Sentencing without legal provision	Juliana was sentenced to a penalty of delegation loss, without legal provision for interim officers of extrajudicial notaries.
Publication of defamatory news	The Brazilian State published news with false information about Juliana, intending to tarnish her image and honor, violating her rights to honor and image.

4. Opinion

In light of the above, it is recommended that petition P-1067-19 be deemed admissible and that the requests submitted by Juliana Gomes Antonangelo and IBEPAC be upheld, with the consequent accountability of the Brazilian State for the serious human rights violations committed.