247 - The Supreme Federal Court (STF) began this Tuesday (2), at 9 am, the trial of criminal action 2668, which investigates the attempted coup d'état attributed to Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and seven other defendants, including former ministers who were part of his government and high-ranking military personnel. The session was opened by Minister Cristiano Zanin, and then the rapporteur of the case, Alexandre de Moraes, presented an extensive report detailing the coup plot. The session was closed after the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, defended the punishment of those involved in the action.

In his report, Moraes detailed the basis for the indictment filed by the Attorney General's Office (PGR), as well as summarizing the defense's arguments. The trial is considered a landmark because it involves the political and military leadership of the Bolsonaro administration, accused of conspiring against the constitutional order following their defeat in the 2022 elections.

Moraes also points out the absence of nullities in the investigations.

Read the full report by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

"Good morning, President, I greet Your Excellency, Minister Cristiano Zanin, I greet Minister Carmen Lucia, Minister Luiz Fux, Minister Flavio Dino, Attorney General of the Republic, Professor Paulo Gonet, I also greet the lawyers present who represent the defendants today, Dr. Jair Alves Pereira, César Roberto Bitencourt, Paulo Renato Garcia Cintra Pinto, Demóstenes Lázaro, Xavier Torres, Eumar Novacki, Matheus Milanês, Celso Villardi and Paulo Amador da Cunha Bueno, André Farias, José Luiz Mendes de Oliveira Lima.

Mr. President, before I begin the report, I think it's important to clarify that we have arrived today, Brazil is arriving today in 2025, almost 37 years after the 1988 Constitution and 40 years after redemocratization, with a strong democracy, independent institutions, a growing economy, and an active civil society.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that we've had 37 years of political, economic, or social tranquility. But it does mean, Mr. President, that the guidelines established by the Federal Constitution for our democratic rule of law have proven to be sound and have prevented countless setbacks.

A democratic rule of law and institutional stability, which is precisely the moment we live in, do not necessarily mean tranquility or the absence of conflict, but rather respect for the Constitution, application of the law, with absolute respect for due process, full defense, and adversarial proceedings.

This trial, which begins with the crucial nucleus called by the Attorney General's Office, is yet another development of the legitimate exercise by the Supreme Federal Court of its criminal jurisdiction conferred by the Constituent Assembly in 1988.

Despite its obvious importance, it follows exactly the same procedural rite, the same respect for due process that this Supreme Federal Court has been following in the 1,630 criminal actions filed by the Attorney General's Office regarding the attempted coup d'état of January 8, 2023.

Of these 1,630 criminal proceedings, there have already been 683 convictions, 11 acquittals, 554 non-prosecution agreements and 382 proceedings remain ongoing.

A country, and consequently its Supreme Court, can only regret that once again in Brazilian republican history an attempt has been made – as this Supreme Federal Court has already recognized in 683 convictions and the defendants themselves have confessed in another 554 non-prosecution agreements – the country and the Supreme Court can only regret that once again in Brazilian republican history a coup d'état has been made, attacking institutions and democracy itself, with the intention of establishing a state of exception and a true dictatorship.

Brazilian society and institutions have demonstrated their strength and resilience, despite the regrettable persistence of a harmful, radical, and violent political polarization, with sad repercussions.

All of us, Brazilians, must do our utmost to resist any attempt to break institutional frameworks.

Mr. President, in these times, history teaches us that impunity, omission, and cowardice are not options for peace, because the seemingly easier path, and only apparently so, which is impunity, which is omission, leaves traumatic scars on society and corrodes democracy, as Brazil's recent past unfortunately demonstrates.

The pacification of the country, which is the desire of all of us, the pacification in the country depends on respect for the Constitution, the application of laws and the strengthening of institutions, and there is no possibility of confusing the healthy and necessary pacification with the cowardice of appeasement, which means impunity and disrespect for the Federal Constitution and, moreover, it means encouraging new attempts at coups d'état.

The mission of this Supreme Federal Court is to analyze the accusations offered by the Attorney General's Office, based on the evidence produced, according to due legal process, broad defense, and the adversarial system, as verified in this criminal action and will be detailed in the report.

If there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal proceedings will be deemed admissible and the defendants will be convicted. If there is proof of innocence or even a reasonable doubt as to the defendants' guilt, they will be acquitted. This is how justice is served.

This is the role of the Supreme Federal Court: to judge impartially and apply justice to each specific case, regardless of threats or coercion, ignoring internal or external pressure.

Regrettably, during the course of this criminal action, it was found that there was willful and conscious conduct by a true criminal organization that, in a manner never seen before in our country, began to act in a cowardly and treacherous manner with the purpose of trying to coerce the judiciary, especially this Supreme Federal Court, and subject the functioning of the Court to the scrutiny of another foreign state.

This coercion, this attempt at obstruction, will not affect the impartiality and independence of the judges of this Supreme Federal Court, who will give, as we are giving today, Mr. President, the normal follow-up to due legal process, which is followed by all of society and the entire Brazilian press.

[The transparency of the Supreme Federal Court] is unparalleled in any court in the world. No court or tribunal in the world gives its judgments as much publicity and transparency as the Supreme Federal Court.

Brazilian institutions are strong and solid, and their members were forged in the purest democratic spirit of the 1988 Constitution.

Institutional courage and defense of national sovereignty are part of the republican universe of the members of this Supreme Court, which will not accept coercion or obstruction in the exercise of its constitutional mission, sovereignly conferred by the Brazilian people through its National Constituent Assembly.

National sovereignty cannot, should not and will never be vilified, negotiated or extorted, as it is one of the foundations of the Federative Republic of Brazil, expressly provided for in Article 1, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution.

The Supreme Federal Court will always be absolutely uncompromising in defending national sovereignty and its commitment to democracy, fundamental rights, the rule of law, the independence of the National Judiciary, and Brazilian constitutional principles.

Judicial independence constitutes a fundamental right of citizens, including the right of everyone to effective judicial protection and to trial and judgment by an independent and impartial court, as a true democratic state governed by the rule of law cannot be conceptualized without the existence of an autonomous judiciary to exercise its role as guardian of the Constitution and the laws.

It is an inflexible principle of the Brazilian Constitution, the independence of the Judiciary in defense of the country.

And the history of this Supreme Federal Court demonstrates that its members have never lacked, and will never lack, the courage to repudiate attacks against enemies of national sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law, or the independence of the Judiciary.

This Court has been and will continue to carry out its constitutional mission, especially in the second half of the year. It will conduct, and today we begin, the trial and conclusions of the important criminal cases related to the attempted coup d'état of January 8, 2023, always within due process, respecting the adversarial system, and refusing any internal or external interference with the independence of the Judiciary. Here, Mr. President, in Criminal Case No. 2,668, the criminal case was instituted based on a complaint filed by the Attorney General of the Republic, fully received by the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court in sessions held on March 25 and 26, 2025.

Against Alexandre Rodrigues Ramagem, Almir Garnier Santos, Anderson Gustavo Torres, Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, Mauro César Barbosa Cid, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira and Walter Souza Braga Neto for the practice of armed criminal organization conduct, attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, coup d'état, damage qualified by violence and serious threat against the public property of the Union and with considerable harm to the victim and deterioration of listed property, observing the rules of competition of people and material competition.

In relation to Jair Messias Bolsonaro, for the same infractions described above and the specific charge of leading the criminal organization.

This complaint was unanimously received.

I transcribe in the report, president, I transcribe a summary in which I make brief observations, mainly because these were all the theses presented by the defense.

The summary stated that there was no impediment, suspension, or bias on the part of the reporting justice and justices Cristiano Zanin and Flávio Dino. The plenary session of this Supreme Court concluded that the arguments presented to the defense do not constitute legal situations that would impede the legitimate exercise of jurisdiction by the accused authorities.

Item two of the agenda: jurisdiction of this Supreme Federal Court, through its first panel, starting on December 18, 2023, article 9, paragraph 1, letter L, of the Internal Regulations of the Supreme Federal Court, for the trial process of all investigations, inquiries and criminal actions related to anti-democratic acts, digital militias, attempted coups and attacks against powers and institutions, including those that occurred on January 8, 2023.

Item three: absolute respect for due process, no nullities in the investigations of the complaint and in the procedure itself carried out based on Law 8,038 of 1990.

Due process provides dual protection for the individual, acting both materially, protecting the right to liberty, and formally, ensuring full equality of conditions with the persecuting state and a full defense. This includes the right to a technical defense, publicity of the proceedings, citation, extensive evidence production, the right to be prosecuted and tried by a competent judge, the right to appeal, an unchangeable decision, and criminal review.

Item 4: lack of nullity in the simultaneous deadline for presenting preliminary defenses of article 4 of law 8038 of 90, absence of legal provision, including provision for confidentiality of the plea bargain agreement as a rule until the eventual receipt of the complaint.

Under the terms of article 4, paragraph 10 of law 12.850 of 2013, only after the initiation of criminal proceedings, in all phases of the process, must the accused defendant be guaranteed the opportunity to speak out after the expiration of the period granted to the defendant who reported him, there being no legal provision for the oral argument of the collaborator's defense at that phase to be prior to the other accused.

The Attorney General's Office's filing of five charges by operating groups is invalid. The principle of indivisibility of criminal proceedings is inapplicable to previous public criminal proceedings. Contradictory decisions are impossible, since the same adjudicating body will analyze all the facts and the five charges filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office.

Item six: broad and restricted access to all evidence supporting the complaint. Duly appointed attorneys, even during the criminal investigation and immediately after the precautionary measures were implemented, had access to the full evidentiary documents in the case file on several occasions.

The defenses had access to the same evidence used by the Public Prosecutor's Office to file the complaint.

Nonexistent defense restriction. No document dump. The existence of numerous documents and media in the case file derives from the complexity of the investigations and the number of defendants indicted by the Federal Police, who systematically produced a report and a summary of the evidence that served both the Attorney General's Office and the defense in an identical and transparent manner, with absolute respect for due process.

Item 8 of the amendment: receipt of the complaint, legality of inquiry 4,874 and petition 12,100, recognized by the full Supreme Federal Court. No irregularities in the Federal Police investigations, monitored by the Public Prosecutor's Office and supervised by the Judiciary, which generated more than 1,600 criminal proceedings.

Item 9: and the existence of nullity and non-characterization of a fishing expedition. The present case, with a substantial investigation initiated to determine the existence of digital militias that threaten the democratic rule of law and the independence of institutions, should not be confused with so-called fishing for evidence, which is only characterized when the intention is to generically investigate some people and not facts, in a speculative manner, that is, to obtain any random data regardless of the investigation initiated or existing criminal offense.

A detailed and complex investigation cannot be confused with illegal fishing for evidence.

All evidence present in the case files was obtained lawfully and identified by the police authority as demonstrated in the summary of the investigation report attached to the case files.

Item 10: inapplicability of the rules of the guarantees judgment in judgment proceedings of the Federal Supreme Court, higher courts, and other proceedings under the original jurisdiction of the courts, which must observe the terms of Law 8,038, of 90, as decided by the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court, in ADIs 6298, 6299, 6300, 6305, reported by the eminent minister Luiz Fux.

Item 11: Legality and validity of the plea bargain agreement. The plea bargain agreement, signed between the Federal Police and Mauro César Barbosa Cid, was duly approved in full compliance with legal requirements. It is worth highlighting the willingness of Mauro César Barbosa Cid to enter into and maintain it, including being accompanied by his attorneys, who were duly appointed for all proceedings.

Item 12: constitutional and legal jurisdiction of the Judiciary in plea bargains, given the legal provision for the possibility of a ratified agreement being terminated in the event of willful omission and contradictions regarding the facts that are the subject of the plea bargain, the reporting minister has constitutional and legal jurisdiction to deign and preside over a hearing with the presence of the plea bargainer, his/her lawyers, and the Attorney General of the Republic, with the purpose of resolving any such irregularities, as well as to analyze the maintenance of the legal requirements for the continued validity of the plea bargain, namely regularity and legality, adequacy of the agreed benefits, adequacy of the results of the plea bargain, and voluntary expression of will, especially in cases where the plea bargainer is or has been under the effect of precautionary measures, absence of coercion, or nullity.

From the summary of the receipt of the complaint: a suitable complaint, presence of the requirements of article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, demonstration in the records of material evidence, indications of authorship of the crimes of armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, damage qualified by violence and serious threat against the assets of the Union, and considerable harm to the victim, deterioration of the listed heritage, observing the rules of competition of people and material competition.

There is no ineptitude in the complaint, which sets out the facts and all the requirements in a comprehensible and coherent manner, allowing the accused to understand the charge and, consequently, to fully exercise their right to defense.

Item 14: Just cause for criminal action, evidence of materiality in reasonable and sufficient evidence of authorship, produced independently, independent of the plea bargain granted by the Federal Police, in addition to other evidence corroborating the collaborator's statements. Existence of just cause for initiating criminal action analyzed based on its three components: typicality, punishability, and viability, ensuring the presence of minimum evidentiary support to indicate the legitimacy of the charge and resulting from the existence, in the police investigation or in the information supporting the complaint, of serious and reliable evidence demonstrating the materiality of the crime and reasonable evidence of authorship.

Once the complaint was unanimously received under these terms of the amendment, all evidentiary material related to the investigation was made available to the ministers of the first group on March 11, 2025, on an external HD.

Subsequently, on September 18, 2025, the entire body of evidence from the ministers of the first group, as well as the documents produced by the Attorney General's Office and the defense, was once again made available via a link, in order to facilitate the analysis of the entire group, as agreed with Your Excellency, President.

I also emphasize that in relation to the defendant Alexandre Rodrigues Ramagem, by virtue of resolution 18-2025 of the Chamber of Deputies, and according to the decision of this First Panel, a unanimous decision of this First Panel, the continuation of the action was ordered in relation to the criminal offenses of criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the Democratic State, coup d'état in view of the inapplicability of the third paragraph of article 53 of the Federal Constitution in relation to crimes committed before the defendant's diploma as federal deputy, and partial suspension of criminal action 2668 was ordered with the consequent suspension of the statute of limitations in relation to the two crimes imputed to the defendant Alexandre Ramagem, committed after his diploma as deputy.

The damage qualified by violence and serious threat against the Union's heritage and the deterioration of listed heritage is also here in the report that I made available to your excellencies, I transcribe the summary.

On April 11, 2025, I ordered the citation and notification of the defendants, as well as I ordered the manifestation of the reported defendants, now, yes, once criminal action was instituted, after the expiration of the term granted to the reporting defendant, Mauro César Barbosa Cid.

All defendants were duly summoned, notified, and filed their preliminary defenses within the legal timeframe. On April 30, 2025, I rejected the preliminary objections raised by the defendants' defense, denied the request for summary acquittal filed by Anderson Gustavo Torres and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira, and set aside the same summary acquittal for the other defendants.

I also allowed the hearing of the witnesses called by the defense and, in relation to the defendant Anderson Gustavo Torres, I ordered that he indicate the list of witnesses called in each of the crimes charged.

This was done later and the witnesses were admitted to grant the request to hear Silvinei Vasques, listed by the defense of Anderson Gustavo Torres, as Silvinei Vasques appears as a defendant in the records of petition 1,200.

And I considered the requests of Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira and Walter Souza Braga Neto for access to the case files and their entirety to be without effect, since, according to the unanimous decision of the first panel, all defenses had already had full and complete access to all evidence attached to the case files.

I also ordered, at the request of Anderson Gustavo Torres' defense, the issuance of official letters to the Superior Electoral Court and the General Directorate of the Federal Police to provide the information requested by the defense.

I also ordered the Federal Police to indicate the best procedure for the parties to have access to the material seized during the investigations and not used by the Attorney General's Office to file the complaint.

This was a request from the defense to potentially analyze evidence not used in the indictment but that might be related to the facts discussed. The Federal Police were subpoenaed and notified to provide the best means of access.

On May 7, 2025, after Anderson Gustavo Torres' defense had expressed its opinion, I granted the request, as I said, I granted it, sorry, that the reports prepared by criminal experts during the election period be forwarded so that the defense could carry out an expert analysis.

I also determined that the defendants' defenses, and they all did, indicate which lawyers were regularly appointed to sign confidentiality terms, with express mention of the duty of secrecy, regarding the data and could receive authorization and address of the external link verification of all material seized by the Federal Police.

Here, President, Minister Cármen, colleagues, explain the need to sign the confidentiality agreement, because in this seized material, in this volume of seized material, which was not used by the Attorney General's Office, to offer the complaint, there were countless, countless conversations, countless recordings that had no relation to the records, including personal matters of many people, hence the need to sign the confidentiality agreement.

Also on May 7, 2025, I set dates for the hearing of witnesses in a pre-trial hearing for this criminal case, to be held by videoconference. The hearings were held by videoconference under my presidency and with the honorable participation of the eminent Justice Luiz Fux. Indeed, on the first day, all the Justices of this Court were honorably present, accompanied by the attorneys and, on part of the prosecution, by the Attorney General.

In sessions held on May 19, May 21, May 22, May 23, May 26, May 27, 28, 29 and 30 and June 2, of the 82 witnesses called, 82 witnesses called, 52 witnesses were heard, 5 for the prosecution, 47 for the defense, two witnesses...

In relation to two witnesses, the defense submitted written supporting statements and I approved the requests for withdrawal made by the prosecution in relation to one witness and by the defense in relation to 27 witnesses, so in total, I repeat, 52 witnesses were heard, with two more witnesses who submitted written statements, 54 witnesses, being 5 defense witnesses, 5 prosecution witnesses, 4 prosecution witnesses and 50 defense witnesses.

In the report I also name each witness and the day they were heard. All statements were recorded in audio and video and made available in the records on the 3rd of the 6th of 2025. Here too, by determination of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a witness cannot have knowledge, contact with what another witness said.

Precisely for this reason, the audio and video recordings of all witnesses were gathered after their hearings were completed.

In a decision dated May 26, at the request of the Attorney General's Office, then in the middle of the criminal proceedings, at the request of the Attorney General's Office, I ordered the opening of a police investigation to investigate the hearing conduct of federal deputy Eduardo Nantes Bolsonaro for the crime of coercion in the course of the process, obstruction of the investigation of the criminal offense, which involves a criminal organization, due to coercion and attempted obstruction of justice carried out in relation to this criminal action 2668.

Also during this request, due to the attempted coercion and obstruction of criminal action 2668, at the request of the Attorney General's Office, I also determined a series of precautionary measures.

Between June 9, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., and June 10, 2025, at 7:04 p.m., in the session room of the first group of the Federal Supreme Court, all the Post Office employees were questioned, starting with collaborator Mauro Cid and, subsequently, in alphabetical order, the other defendants.

At the same hearing, on June 10, 2025, after the defendants' interrogations were concluded, I ordered the parties to be notified for any additional requests and procedures under the terms of article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 10 of Law 8,038, of 90, which governs the procedure in the higher courts.

The defendants filed requests for additional investigations and the Attorney General's Office reported that it had no investigations to be carried out.

On June 17, 2025, I granted the request for a confrontation between the collaborating defendant Mauro César Barbosa Cid and Walter Souza Braga Neto, a request made by Braga Neto's defense and also granted the request of Anderson Gustavo Torres' defense to carry out his confrontation with the witness Marco Antônio Freire Gomes.

I authorized the submission of documents requested by defendant Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira, as well as the submission of expert examinations to be provided by the defense of defendant Anderson Gustavo Torres.

Also at the request of the defense, I ordered the commander of the Brazilian Navy to inform the date on which the directive regarding Operation Formosa 2021 was issued, and that Google Brazil inform the data of the person responsible for inserting the draft decree of the coup into the public domain.

All requests and procedures that were granted during the criminal proceedings were effectively carried out.

Just as all requests granted at the request of the Attorney General's Office with the filing of the complaint, all requests granted were also carried out.

Regarding the defenses, in the same way, in compliance with due process and full defense, all the diligences and requests that were granted during the procedural investigation were effectively carried out.

And here I make a list of the requests and diligences requested by the defenses.

In a decision of June 18, 2025, a new incident in the course of criminal action 2668 in a decision of June 18, 2025, considered an alleged violation of the terms of the plea bargain of Mauro César Barbosa Cid, I ordered the opening of an investigation against Luiz Eduardo de Almeida Santos Contes and Marcelo Costa Câmara to appeal the alleged practice of the crime of obstruction of investigation of a criminal offense involving a criminal organization, an investigation that is being processed by the Federal Police.

On May 27, sorry, on June 27, 2025, after the investigation has concluded with the completion of all the requests and procedures that were granted, those that were granted in the phase of article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I order the summons of the parties to present their final arguments.

Successively, within 15 days, the Attorney General's Office, the awarded collaborator and the defendants.

On the same date, all courts were instructed to forward the defendants' criminal record certificates within five days for information purposes. The certificates were attached to the case file.

On September 14, 2025, the Attorney General's Office presented its final arguments, arguing for the full merits of the criminal action, highlighting the main points of the accusation. And here, President, both in relation to the accusation and in relation to the defense, I will, because the report requires it, highlight the main points, but I will leave the greater details, the greater arguments to be presented both by the Attorney General of the Republic and by the lawyers, since they will all make oral arguments.

Regarding the Attorney General's Office, the main points of the final allegation were the structuring and operation of a criminal organization that allegedly occurred between mid-2021 and early 2023, with the clear intention of promoting the breakdown of the democratic order in Brazil.

The Attorney General's Office emphasized that the group led by Jair Messias Bolsonaro and composed of key figures from the government, the armed forces and intelligence agencies, structured and executed the progressive and systematic plan to attack democratic institutions with the aim of harming the legitimate alternation of power in the 2022 elections and undermining the free exercise of the other constituted powers, especially the Judiciary.

The Attorney General's Office also highlighted that the criminal organization led by the former President of the Republic, together with high-ranking government officials from strategic sectors of the Armed Forces, structured and mobilized thematically, people, resources and competencies of the Brazilian State, disregarding the public interest, to propagate misleading narratives, as well as to provoke social instability and defend authoritarian measures.

The Attorney General's Office stated that the affront to constitutional legality would have as its objective the illicit permanence of Jair Messias Bolsonaro in command of power, with the intention of weakening public bodies, in clear denial of the principle of democratic alternation, popular sovereignty and the balance between powers.

The Attorney General's Office, in relation to the preliminary issues raised by the defendants' defense regarding incompetence to judge the case, the allegation of suspension and impediment, violation of the double degree of jurisdiction and lack of access to the evidence in the case, the Attorney General's Office emphasized that all these allegations had already been overcome by the first panel of this Supreme Federal Court at the time of receipt of the complaint.

Specifically, regarding Anderson Gustavo Torres' defense claim that the testimony of the Armed Forces commanders was invalid on the grounds that they had been improperly induced during the investigation phase, the Attorney General's Office refuted the claim, highlighting that there had been no irregularity.

Also in relation to defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro's claim that the citation was null and void, since it occurred during his hospital stay, the Attorney General's Office refuted the claim, highlighting the defendant's presence in all acts of the investigation and accompanied by his duly appointed lawyers.

Furthermore, the Attorney General's Office alleged that the procedural instruction reinforced the existence of all manuscripts, digital files, spreadsheets, speeches, and ready-made exchanges of messages about the plan to disrupt the democratic order that had been seized by the Federal Police during the investigations, such as the Operation 142 document.

Likewise, the Attorney General's Office highlighted that the witnesses heard in court, mainly the former commanders of the Army and Air Force, confirmed that they were presented with drafts that decreed exceptional measures and did not comply with constitutional hypotheses and had unthinkable consequences in a democratic State governed by the rule of law.

As the Attorney General's Office confirmed, they were pressured to join the coup plan, including suffering virtual attacks.

The Attorney General's Office also stated in its closing arguments that the crimes of coup d'état and restriction of the free exercise of constitutional powers were configured.

Regarding the coup d'état, the Attorney General's Office said that the materiality of the crime was proven by the sequence of acts that broke with the normality of the succession process.

The criminal organization allegedly implemented a misleading narrative aimed at publicly discrediting the electronic voting system, using public resources and agents and mobilizing members of the Brazilian state's Armed Forces to undermine the free expression of the popular will, as well as to support a form of management disconnected from the electoral process after the defeat at the polls.

From this, the Attorney General's Office lists the sequential evidence that, according to the prosecuting body, would confirm this hypothesis.

Furthermore, the Attorney General's Office, in relation to the crime under Article 359-L, cites and begins to make a chronology from September 7, 2021, of statements made at the Esplanada dos Ministérios and on Avenida Paulista, including highlighting that the defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro publicly incited animosity against the Judiciary and its members.

The Attorney General's Office also highlights that the protocol of the so-called Electoral Representation for Extraordinary Verification, questioning the integrity of the electronic voting machines, with the criminal intent of intensifying the negative popular reaction against the Brazilian electoral justice system, is included in these statements."

He also stated the existence of documents on military monitoring actions based on a plan to neutralize public authorities, Operation Green and Yellow Dagger, which, according to the Attorney General's Office, was printed on the premises of the Planalto Palace, aiming to restrict the exercise of constitutional powers.

He also highlighted that the plan reached its peak with Operation World Cup 2022, and that it was only not completed due to the Army's high command's failure to adhere to the exception minutes.

The Attorney General's Office examines the draft of the coup, cites the participation of the Army's high command in preventing the coup from taking place, describes the execution of the Green and Yellow Dagger Plan, describes the actions of the so-called parallel Abin to target authorities in office in constitutional power and, at the same time, to weaken the electronic voting system and facilitate the deposition of the new government, as well as the execution stages of the plan to achieve the coup d'état.

The Attorney General's Office, also in its closing arguments, rejects the application of the principle of consumption or absorption to the crimes provided for in Articles 359-L and 359-M of the Penal Code, namely, attacks against institutions and attempted coup d'état. The Attorney General's Office states that the simultaneous violation of legal assets does not preclude the occurrence of two independent crimes.

He emphasized that, although the crimes are included in the same chapter of the Penal Code and share the same general function of safeguarding the democratic constitutional order, the objects of protection are not mutually exclusive, as Article 359-L criminalizes the attempt to abolish the democratic rule of law itself by restricting the exercise of constitutional powers. Article 359-M, on the other hand, criminalizes the attempt to depose a legitimately constituted government, even if the democratic structure is maintained, at least formally.

He presented the evidence he considers sufficient for convictions for the crimes of damage and deterioration of listed heritage, article 163 and article 62 of the Code, both of the Penal Code, which were the final result of the criminal enterprise that occurred on January 8, 2023, highlighting that in the anti-democratic acts carried out on January 8, 2023, supporters of the leader of the criminal organization Jair Messias Bolsonaro, armed with destructive devices, advanced on Praça dos Três Poderes in an organized march.

Supporters invaded the Federal Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, the Planalto Palace, and the Supreme Federal Court, effectively vandalizing public property with the aim of installing an alternative government regime resulting from the deposition of the legitimately elected government and the violent abolition of the democratic rule of law. He stated that this materiality was demonstrated by the images of destruction that marked national history, as well as by the provision of documents that detailed the damage caused by the events of January 8, 2023, documents submitted by the Federal Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, and the Supreme Federal Court.

Regarding the benefits arising from the plea bargain agreement entered into by defendant Mauro César Barbosa Cid with the Federal Police, the Attorney General's Office stated that the benefits must be applied in compliance with the principle of proportionality with an analysis of the collaborator's effective contribution to clarifying the facts and the degree of loyalty demonstrated throughout the procedure.

He therefore alleged contradictory behavior by the cooperating defendant due to omissions and resistance to full compliance with obligations, suggesting a reduction in the sentence to be set at a minimum level and, in turn, a reduction of one-third of the sentence imposed for the criminal act as a reward benefit due to his collaboration and suggesting the exclusion of the granting of judicial pardon, the automatic conversion of the custodial and restrictive rights sentence and also the exclusion of the maximum reduction of two-thirds.

And he concluded by requesting the conviction of all defendants for the crimes charged.

On September 29, 2025, the defense of the collaborating defendant, Mauro César Barbosa Cid, presented the final arguments.

To summarize, because here again, the lawyer, the eminent lawyer for the cooperating defendant, will provide details, as will the Attorney General in his oral arguments, I emphasize in summary that Mauro César Barbosa Cid entered into the plea bargain agreement voluntarily, always with the guidance and support of his attorneys in all procedural proceedings to which he was summoned. The plea bargain agreement met all the requirements of validity, efficacy, and effectiveness and, as such, was approved and ratified by the cooperating defendant and by this Supreme Court.

Mauro Cid's defense also argued that, despite the technical defense disagreeing with the accusation, or at least with the capitulation attributed by the Attorney General's Office regarding the facts narrated and their authorship, it is not possible to affirm that Mauro César Barbosa Cid did not say everything he knew, much less that he had lied or omitted a relevant fact that he had a contractual obligation to say.

He further claims that the discussion about the document referred to by the Attorney General's Office as a coup draft, narrated by the collaborator, was confirmed by the three commanders of the Armed Forces, General Freire Gomes, Almir Garnier and Brigadier Batista Júnior, as well as by the defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro.

The meeting, according to the defense, the meeting to present the considerations was also confirmed by the commanders of the Armed Forces.

He further alleges that, as explained by Mauro César Barbosa Cid, the discussions materialized in the recitals arose after Jair Messias Bolsonaro claimed the existence of fraud in the elections, which was also confirmed by everyone who participated in the meeting.

Regarding the meeting on November 12, 2022, at Walter Souza Braga Neto's house, Mauro César Barbosa Cid's defense claims there is no disagreement about its holding, although the collaborating defendant did not effectively participate.

The defense also explains why, with regard to the request for money from Walter Sousa Braga Neto, there would also be no controversy, with a divergence only in relation to its effective delivery, since Mauro César Barbosa Cid claims to have received a bag of wine, while Walter Sousa Braga Neto denies having delivered the amounts.

The defense also claims that the Attorney General's Office, in a very fine line between reality and procedural unfairness, uses all the information and evidence gathered from the plea bargain, anchoring it as the basis of its entire accusation, arguing at the end of the investigation and its reasons that the collaborator does not deserve the prize agreed in the agreement.

The defense claims that, in light of the decision handed down by the imminent reporting minister, on November 23, 2024, in a clear and direct manner, the rigidity and effectiveness of the plea bargain agreement signed by Mauro César Barbosa Cid would have been reiterated.

There is no supervening or legally relevant fact capable of invalidating such recognition, and it would be unacceptable for the collaborator to now be surprised by an entirely unreasonable request from the Attorney General's Office to unilaterally review the agreed benefits. He claims that no evidence was presented in court against Mauro César Barbosa Cid, and no witness described any typical willful, incidental, or contributory conduct by the collaborating defendant.

Mauro César Barbosa Cid's defense claims that he did not participate in coup meetings, did not order or encourage any act of violence, did not promote institutional rupture, and did not meet to plan coups.

And he says that the evidence produced at the police station disproves the accusation against the collaborating defendant Mauro César Barbosa Cid.

In the end, in addition to asking for an acquittal, saying that it is excessively accusatory, he also asks for the full maintenance of the benefits provided for in the plea bargain agreement.

On August 13, 2025, all defenses presented their closing arguments.

Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues' defense presented the following main arguments.

According to the narrative presented by the Attorney General's Office, the crime defined in Article 2 of Law No. 12,850 continued beyond the diploma, which is why it also requested the suspension of this crime.

He claimed there was no evidence of the charges against defendant Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues, since he had not participated in the construction and dissemination of a narrative of electoral fraud, there had been no improper use of state structures for political purposes, and he had also not participated in interference in control and prosecution bodies.

His defense claims that the information gathered by the prosecution does not meet the evidentiary standards necessary to convict Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues. He says that, although the Attorney General's Office stated that the document President TSE Informa.docx, created on July 10, 2021, revealed that Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues had delved into fallacious arguments about the 2018 election results, questioning the credibility of the Superior Electoral Court in counting the votes, the Attorney General's Office disregarded the fact that the text merely reproduced public statements by Jair Messias Bolsonaro.

Alexandre Ramagem's defense also claims that the content, the text presented, presented arguments for the adoption of the so-called auditable vote or printed vote, a topic that at the time was on the agenda of the National Congress.

Regarding the document BomDiaPresidente.docx, Alexandre Ramagem's defense points out that the points presented are part of the public security test of the ballot boxes regulated by TSE resolution 23.673, so that it cannot be considered an illicit act or evidence of improper use in the structure of the Brazilian intelligence system for anti-democratic purposes. Regarding the document PR Presidente, Alexandre Ramagem's defense points out that the text indicates illegalities that, in the defendant's understanding, were being committed within the scope of police inquiries regarding the initiation of the inquiries, violation of the accusatory system and selection of delegates by the STF without distribution.

The text also contains, according to the defense, personal and private notes and has no relation to the possible unfounded non-compliance with court orders.

Regarding the text Presidente.docx, Alexandre Ramagem's defense claims that its content concerns considerations that reflect public statements already made by Jair Messias Bolsonaro, and it is not possible to affirm that the defendant Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues provided the former president with arguments to attack public authorities.

Based on the witness evidence produced in the case, the defense says that it is possible to conclude that Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues, in fact, used a room in the Planalto Palace, but to meet with several people, not just the president of the republic, and that there would be no evidence in the case to conclude that it was a frequent habit or with a specific day in his audiences with the president of the republic.

The documents submitted to the case by the defense, according to the defense itself, demonstrate that Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues made efforts to verify the legality of the use of the FirstMile tool, and, at his request, two administrative procedures were instituted within the scope of Abin for this purpose, one of them, in fact, in the agency's internal affairs department. The FirstMile tool was used, according to the defense, exclusively by intelligence officers assigned to the Intelligence Operations Department, at the time headed by Paulo Maurício Fortunato Pinto, whose reluctance to provide information about the use of the tool led to the initiation of an administrative procedure within the scope of Abin's Internal Affairs Department, at the request of Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues himself, and subsequently led to his dismissal. The defense also claims that the Attorney General's Office made a serious mistake in stating that Alexandre Ramagem's entry logs into the system had been identified as of May 15, 2019, even before he took office as director-general, and just one month after the tool began to be used, because the dates referred to by the Attorney General's Office, according to the defense, do not refer to system entry logs, but rather to the defendant's entry into Abin's physical premises.

It also claims that the conclusions of the police authority in the final report of PET 11.108, made public on June 18, 2025, cannot be used in these proceedings, as they were not subject to adversarial proceedings and full defense.

He claims that there is no evidence or proof that illegal actions undertaken by Abin employees resulted from an order issued by the defendant Alexandre Ramagem, and that the monitoring attributed by the prosecution to the defendant refers to a handful of information available on the internet, activities that were presented by the police authority as intelligence activity.

Defendant Alexandre Ramagem, in his defense, also claims that the PET 11-108 report failed to delimit or conceptualize what constitutes intelligence activities, and much of the monitoring mentioned in the aforementioned final report is not relevant to the subject of this criminal action. He further claims that Alexandre Ramagens's note about consulting the Attorney General's Office is not identical to that attributed to Augusto Heleno, and that the accusation that the defendant proposed using the Attorney General's Office to prevent compliance with court decisions regarding the alleged use of the Abin (Brazilian Institute of Intelligence) to investigate Federal Revenue Service employees is unfounded. Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues, in a meeting with attorneys Flávio Bolsonaro, opposed this use, the defense claims.

The defense also states that there was no action by the defendant to delay the outcome of the administrative disciplinary process.

Regarding the crime under Article 2 of Law 12,850, the complaint is silent, says the defense, regarding the fact that Alexandre Ramagem Rodrigues had already been dismissed from the position of Heterogeral Dabin on March 30, 2022.

Also in relation to the crimes of article 359-L and 359-B, M says to the defense that it violates logic, reasonableness and the attempt to attribute to the defendant any responsibility for such serious conduct that, according to the Attorney General's Office, would abolish democratic structures by preventing the functioning of a legislative power to which he had just been elected, and asks for acquittal.

Almir Garnier Santos' defense also presented the following main arguments: that the closing arguments of the Attorney General's Office narrate facts unrelated to the complaint.

Notably, the Navy parade in Praça dos Três Poderes, interpreted as a symbolic act of support for the alleged coup attempt, and the defendant's absence from the Navy's handover of command ceremony, in which Almir Garnier Santos allegedly acted to reinforce the alleged coup agenda.

The defense claims that this constitutes mutatio libelli.

It also states that Mauro César Barbosa Cid's plea bargain is flawed due to the collaborator's liability, so that his statements must be declared invalid.

He continues to state that there is no evidence that would allow, with the necessary certainty, to establish a criminal conviction and a direct connection between the conduct attributed to Almir Garnier Santos and the acts of January 8, 2023.

The absence of concrete evidence establishing a direct connection between the conducts should lead to acquittal.

It also states that there is no creation of a prohibited risk, as the acts attributed fall within the legitimate exercise of freedom of political expression.

Almir Garnier Santos' defense continues, saying that the breaking of the causal link, the breaking of the causal link, since the events occurred in a legitimate political context of debate and the transition of power, disqualifies any continuity of a coup plan, and the absence of a causal link between the acts described in the complaint and the acts of January 8, 2023 must be recognized.

And, consequently, the atypical nature of the imputed conduct must be declared.

Furthermore, Almir Garnier Santos' defense claims that the facts narrated in the complaint are limited, in relation to Almir Garnier Santos, to the accused's participation in two meetings, held on December 7 and December 14, 2022, as well as the signing of a note published on November 11, 2022, which was signed by the three commanders of the Forces.

Regarding the note, the defense says that the information gathered during the procedural investigation was clear in revealing that its publication was not ordered by the then president of the republic, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, and that it was an act intended to pacify the country.

On December 14, 2022, Almir Garnier's defense claims, they were only known after the investigations began, which is why they have no relevance in the causal chain imagined by the Attorney General's Office, since they had no capacity to cause any interference, given their private nature.

The defense also says that, regarding the messages sent by Walter Sousa Braga Neto, in which he determines an interlocutor who praises Garnier Santos, there is no evidence in the records that shows the materialization of this order, such as publications or videos with the intention of influencing anyone.

The defense also says that even the tank parade held on August 10, 2021, as well as the change of command held on January 5, 2023, are not relevant in the causal chain that integrates the accused of the acts of January 8, 2023, either as a determining element of this relationship, or as a fact capable of increasing a previously created risk.

And the defense continues to state that the evidence produced about the meeting on December 7th only demonstrates that Almir Garnier and General Freire Gomes were summoned by the President of the Republic through the Minister of Defense to appear at the Planalto Palace, at which time considerations were presented to them.

It was reported, however, that the defense says that the matter was under study and in the end the meeting was closed without any statement or position.

He also states that, in the confrontation between the testimonies of Batista Júnior and Freire Gomes, the testimony of the latter should prevail, since it is corroborated by two relevant pieces of evidence, the note released by the Navy and the testimony of Admiral Olsen, both denying any mobilization of troops.

On the other hand, Batista Júnior's testimony, which is the only one to state that the troops were made available, does not have, according to the defense, any other evidence to support it.

He continues to assert that the prosecution did not discharge its duty to specifically specify Almir Garnier Santos' participation in the meeting and his adherence to the coup plan, and consequently requests acquittal on all charges.

Anderson Gustavo Torres' defense also presented these main arguments. The Supreme Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and judge the present case. While recognizing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, the defense argues that this responsibility lies with the full court, not the first panel.

He further claims that the defense was restricted due to the omission of the investigation, the indexing of the draft of the coup on Google, since Google Brazil responded that it could not identify the person responsible for the insertion because it did not host the content, limiting itself to indexing third-party pages, and that the defense requested additional technical clarifications that were undefined by the reporting minister due to his alleged impertinence.

He also alleges a violation of his right to a defense due to the refusal to carry out due diligence with the WhatsApp target related to obtaining records of voice and video calls made via WhatsApp by Fábio Augusto Vieira and Robson Cândido da Silva on January 8, 2023, and metadata of messages and files eventually exchanged through the same application.

Anderson Torres' defense continues to argue that the Attorney General's Office did not expose the criminal act with all its circumstances, failing to comply with the command of article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the defense, the indictment accuses Anderson Torres of four different behaviors.

The live broadcast, held on September 29, 2021, brought together what occurred on September 5, 2022, the improper use of the state machinery, especially the Federal Highway Police, to benefit Jair Messias Bolsonaro between the first and second rounds of the 2022 elections and alleged improper omission while he held the position of Secretary of Public Security of the Federal District in January 2023.

The defense says that in relation to the live broadcast on September 29, 2021, the defendant was summoned to participate by the president and his speech was approximately 4 minutes long, in which he only read, following the guidance of his advisor.

Regarding the ministerial meeting of July 5, 2022, the defense said that the defendant, in a speech lasting approximately five minutes, limited himself to suggesting that the other ministers make public the actions and policies carried out by their departments.

Regarding the accusation of instrumentalization of the Federal Highway Police to compromise the fairness of the second round of the 2022 presidential elections, the defense alleges that there was no transfer or use of intelligence bulletins by the Federal Highway Police, that any meetings and conversations held between Anderson Torres and Marília Ferreira de Alencar were absolutely natural and compatible with the institutional attributions of both, and that regarding the institutional meeting held on October 19, 2022, at the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, the high-ranking leadership of the Federal Police present at the meeting – composed of the director-general, Márcio Nunes, the director of combating organized crime, Caio Pelin, and the director of intelligence, Alessandro Moretti – was heard at the penal station, the high-ranking leadership, and was categorical in stating that there was never in that meeting, or in any other, any illicit determination, guidance, or suggestion coming from the then Minister of Justice, Anderson Gustavo Torres.

Furthermore, the defense says that Batista Junior's testimony was that he was not sure of Anderson Gustavo Torres' participation in any meeting, and Freire Gomes' testimony was that he never witnessed or discussed any illegal matter with the defendant.

Anderson Gustavo Torres also claims in his defense that he did not participate in the meetings of December 7 and December 14, 2022, when, in theory, anti-democratic documents were presented to the commanders of the forces.

And he also says that, by examining the entry and exit reports from Palácio da Alvorada, he saw that Anderson Torres, Ferreira Gomes and Batista Junior, according to the defense, were never present at the same place and time.

The defense further states that the draft discussed at the meeting on December 7, 2022 does not correspond to the document seized at the residence, nor its residence.

It claims that a fingerprint examination conducted by the Federal Police did not find the fingerprints of any of the accused in the draft. The defense claims that similar drafts were and continue to circulate freely throughout the country, some even on Google and the Conjura website.

He also said that in relation to the trip to the United States, on Gol's own behalf, the company Gol, shows proof from the travel agency and a notarial certificate, evidencing that, contrary to what was alleged by the Attorney General's Office, the airline tickets were in fact purchased on November 21, 2022, when there was no thought of holding demonstrations on January 8, 2023.

He also says that Governor Ibaneis Rocha's testimony in the civil inquiry confirms that Anderson Gustavo Torres informed him about the trip to the United States when he was invited to take office and, consequently, from that point onwards, he requests his acquittal.

Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira's defense also presented the following main arguments.

The rapporteur's suspicion must be recognized due to having been the target of an alleged plan by a criminal organization, of which the accused was part to kill him, together with the president-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, restriction of defense due to the impossibility of analyzing all the evidentiary material made available due to the occurrence of the practice known as document dump and due to the selectivity of the police authority in making the evidence available.

Augusto Heleno's defense claims that there was a violation of the accusatory system and due process, since in the evidentiary hearing the reporting minister asked six times more questions than the Attorney General's Office.

He also claims that there was a violation of the right to silence and illegal coercion, since the reporting minister, after the defendant's statement, wanted to partially exercise the right to silence, answering only the questions formulated by his technical defense, and assigned the questions.

Specifically in relation to the defendant Augusto Heleno, the defense says that the Attorney General's Office did not discharge the burden of proof.

Regarding the live broadcast held on September 7, 2021, the defendant's actions, according to the defense, would be solely with physical presence, without uttering any words or expressing himself in any way.

Augusto Heleno, according to the defense, is in favor of the printed vote, but after the National Congress rejected a proposal to that effect in plenary and the Ministry of Defense's report of November 9, 2022, did not present a conclusion on the possibility of insecurity in electronic voting machines, there was no statement from the defendant on this, and it also claims that the finding of the removal of the defendant Augusto Heleno from the defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro after the entry of the, in quotation marks, centrão into the government is omitted, so that the defendant cannot be attributed the role of advisor to Jair Messias Bolsonaro.

Augusto Heleno's defense also says that at the ministerial meeting on July 5, 2022, Augusto Heleno's words about using Abin to monitor what both sides are going to do were transparent, public and with the conviction that they were within his powers regarding State intelligence.

The defense further claims that the defendant's intention was to infiltrate Abin agents into the electoral campaigns, such action would be impossible due to the absolute lack of time for this type of measure to be implemented, as corroborated by witness Christian.

The defense also claims that Augusto Heleno Pereira did not meet with the director-general of Abin regarding speeches and disinformation. Regarding the expressions in quotation marks:"Whatever needs to be done, needs to be done before the elections. If you have to slam your fist on the table, it's before the elections. If you have to turn the tables, it's before the elections," said by Augusto Heleno at the ministerial meeting on July 5, 2022, the defense said the defendant did not refer to any anti-democratic measures.

Regarding the seized diary, the defense says it is actually a notebook for personal notes, with an uncertain chronology, containing matters that were not shared with anyone.

The defense claims that the Federal Police made the pages referred to in the notebook available in a reorganized manner, with the aim of demonstrating a linear narrative, when, in fact, they are separated from each other and refer to distinct and unrelated situations and subjects.

The expression in quotation marks,"it is valid to continue criticizing the electronic voting machine," refers, according to the defense, to the defendant's personal position. The defendant, according to the defense, did not develop a manual for noncompliance with a court decision through the Attorney General's Office.

Regarding the topic of strategic guidelines meeting, the subtitles would characterize guidelines for a future electoral campaign, and which were written before the middle of the term, which also, according to the defense, was manipulated by the police authority.

The defense says the allegations that the defendant politicized the institutional security office are not true.

Augusto Heleno's defense also says that the mention made in the final reasons of the accusation to the meeting that took place between the President of the Republic, his son, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, and two lawyers is inappropriate and when the defendant realized that the subject of the meeting did not concern the GSI, he asked for leave and left without taking any action.

Augusto Heleno, also according to his defense, never dealt with Operation Green-Yellow Dagger in the Planalto Palace or outside it, and had no knowledge of the content of the operation.

The defense also says that Augusto Heleno was not invited and did not attend the meetings in November and December at Palácio Alvorada and the Ministry of Defense.

Regarding the encampment in front of the Army Headquarters in Brasília, the defense claims that the defendant never visited the encampment nor attended any other encampment. Nor did he express support for this type of encampment on social media.

The defendant, the defense continues, the defendant had no participation in the events of January 8, 2023 and after his dismissal from the GSI, on December 31, 2022, he had no contact with the agency's employees.

Furthermore, its entire board of directors was dismissed at the same time. The phrase, in quotation marks,"thieves don't climb the ramp," the defense says, does not show that the defendant acted to impede the democratic transition of power.

There is no evidence that the defendant participated in the parallel Abin, and there is indication, on the other hand, that he was even monitored, says his defense.

The defendant never discussed with anyone any meeting, minutes or any other matter of a coup nature.

The defense also states that there is no possibility of imputing the practice of crimes and attempted abolition of violence in the Democratic State and attempted coup d'état.

To the defendant, due to the absolute absence of any conduct that could constitute the aforementioned crimes.

He requests acquittal and, subsidiarily, if this does not occur, he says that the special cause for reduction provided for in article 29, paragraph 3, should be applied, in favor of the defendant, if subsidiarily there is a conviction here.

Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense also presented the following main arguments.

There was a restriction on the defense due to the lack of sufficient time for the technical defense to review the evidence in the case, including the denial of a request to postpone the evidentiary hearing after receiving links containing raw material extracted from the seized electronic devices.

It also alleges nullity that this nullity worsened and deepened the restriction of defense, because the defenders were prohibited from participating in the hearings and interrogations of the accused who were in other units.

According to Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense, Mauro César Barbosa Cid's plea bargain agreement is null and void, and the whistleblower lacks credibility because he has repeatedly lied.

According to Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense, the collaborator breached the agreement and the precautionary measures imposed on him as an alternative to his preventive detention, through conversations held on a third party's profile on the social network Instagram, which reveal that the collaboration was not the result of a voluntary act and was not based on truth.

Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense also claims that in its closing arguments, the Attorney General's Office acknowledges all the resistance, which according to the defense means the collaborator's lack of spontaneity in reporting his participation in the most serious and sensitive events of the complaint, to maintain rigid the narrative of what he chose to tell, which is not possible.

It further states that the collaborator confesses that, faced with veiled threats, he entered into a plea bargain, but provided manipulated statements. The Attorney General's Office has resisted asserting his worthlessness because it needs a piece of it, the one that isn't covered by the Federal Police's spontaneous discovery.

The topic and debate regarding the printed vote, says Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense, occupied the electoral campaign in 2022, and it was in this context of electoral campaign and political debate that the ministerial meeting of July 5, 2022 and the meeting with ambassadors of July 18, 2022 were always interpreted.

The news that Jair Messias Bolsonaro and Walter Souza Braga Neto's speech on September 7, 2022, as well as the meeting with the ambassadors described in the indictment, were already the subject of electoral proceedings that led to their ineligibility, and therefore, as the defense claims, cannot be interpreted as criminal acts involving former President Jair Messias Bolsonaro, was also amply proven in the case records. The defense also claims that, after the transition ended, Jair Messias Bolsonaro left the country. And when he did, the criminal and coup-like acts of January 8, 2023, which occurred ten days later, were not even foreseeable, and they occurred despite Jair Messias Bolsonaro's actions.

The accusations made by the Attorney General's Office against Jair Messias Bolsonaro, according to the defense, are not supported by either logic or the evidence in the case.

The prosecution tries, in some way and without success, to link Jair Messias Bolsonaro with the plans learned and the acts of January 8th.

The defense claims that the indictment indicates that Jair Messias Bolsonaro studied, edited, and presented to the military minutes of decrees providing for the arrests of authorities, the declaration of a state of siege or state of defense, and the decree of a law and order operation. However, the defense claims that these documents were not included in the case file.

The draft coup document, sometimes called a speech by the Attorney General's Office, according to the defense, was never presented to Jair Messias Bolsonaro, who only became aware of it when it was seized by the Federal Police.

Regarding the meeting on the 7th and 12th of 2022, no one saw a text predicting the arrest of several ministers of the Supreme Federal Court, among other authorities, a statement, according to the defense, that exists exclusively in the testimony of the whistleblower Mauro César Barbosa Cid.

The defense of Jair Messias Bolsonaro also claims that there is no alleged draft decree in the records with the text trimmed down, providing only for the arrest of the rapporteur.

And there is also no document anywhere in the records, not even in the statements, that the prosecution claims was presented by the defendant Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira to the three commanders of the Armed Forces on December 14, 2022.

Bolsonaro continues to assert that there was no proof of any request by Jair Messias Bolsonaro for the movement of troops, and that there is no description of Jair Messias Bolsonaro's participation in any other event, much less with the Green-Yellow Dagger, Operation Luneta and 2022 World Cup plans.

The accusation would only bring the presumption that the Green Yellow Punhal Plan had been drawn up for Jair Messias Bolsonaro at the Alvorada Palace, when General Mário Fernandes' entry into the building was recorded, without having produced any proof that any document was delivered or that there was a meeting with the then President of the Republic.

The defense also says that the Attorney General's Office attributes to the defendant, as if they were criminal acts, his electoral speeches and statements criticizing the electronic voting system.

It continues to state that, excluding the punishability of preparatory acts, there is no doubt that the conduct imputed by the Attorney General's Office, embodied in live broadcasts criticizing the electronic voting system, ministerial meetings with ambassadors and other meetings, are, at worst, non-criminalized preparatory acts.

Furthermore, the defense says, there is no correspondence between the behavior attributed to Jair Messias Bolsonaro and the violence or serious threat required by the criminal types provided for in articles 359-L and 359-M of the Penal Code.

And he says that even if the version of the complaint is adopted, it cannot be said that the meeting that took place on December 7, 2022, was an act of execution of the crimes of violent abolition of the Democratic State of Law and of a coup d'état, as this presupposes a constituted government, a circumstance that did not exist on the 7th and 12th of 2022.

Furthermore, it cannot be alleged that the attempt would be characterized, given that, in quotation marks, 'the attempted coup was not consummated due to the loyalty of the Army', despite the distortion of some of its members and the Air Force, the democratic normative force in force, which was the statement made by the Attorney General's Office.

And the defense said that the attempt will not be characterized, as no act of initiation of execution was perfected that could activate the incidence of a circumstance beyond the agent's control, since there was no signature of the decree.

The attempt, says the defense, is an attempt to attribute criminal responsibility without imputing any conduct to Jair Messias Bolsonaro with regard to the improper use of the structure of the Federal Highway Police and the parallel Abin.

Regarding the acts of January 8, 2023, Jair Messias Bolsonaro's defense also says it is not possible to speak, as the Attorney General's Office intends, of participation by instigation in mass crimes.

The government structure, then installed in the Planalto Palace, was fully legal and functioning in accordance with the Federal Constitution, and there was no need to discuss the existence of any criminal organization to conclude the defense.

There was also never any criminal cooperation between Jair Messias Bolsonaro and the others accused in PET-12 and 100.

Finally, the defense said that the criminal conduct described in the indictment was intended to keep Jair Messias Bolsonaro in power, and that these allegations are not sufficient to identify him as a member or leader of the criminal organization, even though he could eventually benefit from the crimes as a result of the crimes.

It requests the acquittal of defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro and, subsidiarily, if there is no such acquittal, it says that voluntary withdrawal or consumption, absorption or even formal competition between the crimes provided for in articles 359-L and 359-M of the Penal Code must be recognized.

Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira's defense also presented these main arguments.

He says that Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira is innocent and actively acted to prevent a coup d'état and the violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, advising Jair Messias Bolsonaro that nothing could be done in light of the election results.

According to his defense, the defendant feared that radicals would advise Jair Messias Bolsonaro and advise him to sign a, quote, 'crazy thing', referring to exceptional measures and a democratic rupture.

The defendant worked directly with Brigadier Batista Júnior and General Freire Gomes to dissuade defendant Jair Messias Bolsonaro from any exceptional measure, and delivered a proposed speech by Jair Messias Bolsonaro, accepting the proposed speech in the sense of accepting the election results.

It also says that defendant Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira was the target of an attempted deposition by Walter Souza Braga Neto and by General Mário Fernandes, Defendant in another criminal action.

The defendant would not be part of the so-called crisis cabinet to be installed after the breakdown of the democratic rule of law, his defense claims, and that the defendant was the victim of virtual attacks for not defending any exceptional measure.

At the meeting on July 5, 2022, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira did not express his narrative of electoral fraud in a sweet way.

His defense also says that at no time did he instigate the idea of intervention by the Armed Forces in the electoral process and claims that it is a fallacy to claim that the Armed Forces' report on the electronic voting system was ready before the second round and was postponed for political reasons.

Stages 7 and 8 of the work plan were, according to the defense, scheduled to take place from the day following the second round and up to 60 days after the election.

The defense also claims that it does not uphold the claim that the Ministry of Defense, after being summoned to provide information within 48 hours, did not respond to the Superior Electoral Court's request for information.

The note from the Ministry of Defense, according to Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira's defense, does not indicate any suspicion of electoral fraud, and in the same period in which the note of November 10, 2022 was published, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira, according to his defense, would be acting to dissuade Jair Messias Bolsonaro from any exceptional measure.

The meeting on December 14, 2022, held with the commanders of the Armed Forces, according to the defense of Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira, was not intended to pressure the commanders to adhere to any anti-democratic measure.

The complaint states that the defense is inept, as there is no adequate description of the criminal acts attributed to the defendant.

He also claims that the Supreme Federal Court is incompetent to process and judge the case and that, if it were competent, it would be the plenary and not the first panel.

The defense alleges a violation of the double standard of justice. It also alleges excessive prosecution, and that the conduct attributed to the defendant is atypical, because if the crime of coup d'état had been committed through attacks on the electoral process and improper manipulation of security forces, there would have been no violence or serious threat, according to the defense.

Defendant Paulo Sérgio's defense says that the conduct attributed to the defendant is atypical, as all the acts carried out before January 1st, such as live broadcasts and meetings, were not carried out with the aim of deposing the constituted government, which rules out the configuration of the crime of coup d'état provided for in Article 359-M of the Penal Code. It also states that, according to the indictment, without the Army and the Air Force it was impossible to consummate a coup d'état.

Therefore, the demonstration on January 8, 2023 was an inappropriate means of achieving this result.

Consequently, the crime of a coup d'état on January 8 would be an impossible crime, says the defense, due to the absolute ineffectiveness of the means.

Still in relation to the crime under article 359-L of the Penal Code, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira's defense says that its completion requires that constitutional powers have been effectively impeded or restricted.

Consequently, he says that there is no body of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, capable of leading to a conviction of Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira and requests the defendant's acquittal.

Finally, Walter Souza Braga Neto's defense presented the following arguments.

The criminal action is null and void because it is based on investigations carried out in PET-1200, which originated from investigations conducted in inquiry 4874, the digital militias inquiry, which in turn has as its object the investigation of facts already archived in inquiry 4828, which demonstrates the violation of article 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Since the Supreme Federal Court is still incompetent to process and judge the case, and if it were competent, the jurisdiction would be of the plenary and not of this first group.

Walter do Braga Neto's defense also says that, although the plenary session of the Supreme Federal Court decided not to recognize the rapporteur's suspicion, the criminal investigation demonstrated that there was no impartiality and equidistance between the parties in the criminal action.

It also states that, in relation to the allegation of suspicion, there was a demonstration of an inquisitorial stance in the hearing of witnesses, that the defense's appeals against single-judge decisions were not submitted to collegiate analysis, while the procedural progress evolved very quickly, emptying the appeal requests.

It also states that the arrest of Walter Souza Braga Neto and Mauro César Barbosa Cid was not recorded by the Judicial Secretariat and was not even allowed to be recorded by the Defense, and that precautionary measures and house arrest were decreed ex officio, which characterizes improper action as they are typical initiatives of the prosecution body.

Walter Souza Braga Neto's defense also says that Mauro César Barbosa Cid's plea bargain is null and void due to lack of voluntariness, that the process is also null and void due to the practice of document dump, that the process is also null and void due to the refusal to participate in the interrogations of the other defendants in the other criminal actions, which are unlawful and useless, the prints of WhatsApp conversations between Walter Braga Neto and Ailton Barros, and the process is null and void based on the conciliation carried out between Walter Braga Neto and Mauro César Barbosa Cid due to the failure to record it due to violation of the right guaranteed in article 367, paragraph 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Walter Braga Neto's defense also alleges the lack of evidence of the charges arising from Mauro César Barbosa Cid's plea bargain agreement, the lack of evidence of the coup intention of the meeting held at Walter Sousa Braga Neto's residence on November 12, 2022, the lack of evidence of the delivery of money to finance coup acts and the lack of evidence of coordination of virtual attacks.

Furthermore, Walter Braga Neto's defense says that there is no evidence of alleged participation in the criminal organization or in the coup acts of January 8, 2023.

Walter Braga Neto's defense claims that crimes against the democratic rule of law are atypical due to the impossibility of conviction for merely preparatory acts and the absence of the elements of violence and serious threat.

It also alleges the existence of a prohibition of bis in idem, that is, of duplication, due to the double imputation of violent abolition of the Democratic State of Law, article 359-L, and of the coup d'état, article 359-M, both of the Penal Code.

He concludes by saying that it is impossible to make an independent conviction in relation to the crimes of qualified damage and deterioration of public property, as they constitute crimes that serve as a means for the alleged practice of crimes of violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, with the defense concluding with a request for acquittal.

On August 14, 2025, considering the regular conclusion of the procedural investigation, the fulfillment of all the additional diligences defined, as well as the presentation of final arguments by the Attorney General's Office and by all defendants, I requested the Honorable President of the First Chamber, Minister Cristiano Zanin, to schedule the in-person trial of the criminal action.

On August 15, 2025, the eminent president, Minister Cristiano Zanin, scheduled the in-person trial of this criminal action for today, September 3, September 9, September 10, September 12, is the report, president".

*The audio of the reading of the report by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes was processed by an artificial intelligence tool and reviewed by Folha de S. Paulo.