The voting result of the First Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), which sentenced, by 4 votes to 1, Jair Bolsonaro (PL) to 27 years and 3 months in prison, significantly reduced the alternatives for the defense of the former president, according to an assessment by experts consulted by Estadão.

Alexandre de Moraes, Flávio Dino, Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin voted to convict all five of the crimes charged: armed criminal organization, coup d'état, attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, deterioration of listed heritage and qualified damage to the Union's heritage.

The only one to dissent was Luiz Fux, who acquitted Bolsonaro. There was no disagreement among the four justices when it came to setting the sentence of 27 years and 3 months, and Fux chose not to comment on the length of the sentence.

Bolsonaro's defense has two immediate avenues of appeal, according to ESPM Law professor Ana Laura Pereira Barbosa. The first is a motion for clarification, used only to request clarification on the decision. This instrument rarely leads to substantive changes, the expert says.

The second would be the infringing embargoes, which allow the trial to be reopened when there is a non-unanimous decision, taking the case from the First Chamber, made up of five ministers, to the STF Plenary, which has 11 members.

Ana Laura explains that the internal rules do not specify the minimum number of dissenting votes required in the Panel to allow this type of appeal to be filed. However, recent Court decisions are not encouraging for Bolsonaro's defense, as they required two votes instead of just one.

"In the most recent case, a trial involving former mayor Paulo Maluf, the Supreme Court ruled that, for an appeal against a panel decision to be admissible, at least two acquittal votes would be required," says the professor, noting that in Bolsonaro's trial, there was only one acquittal vote."The voter's decision diminished the defense's chances," she analyzes.

In practice, explains Ana Laura, it will be up to Moraes, the case's reporting judge, to decide whether or not to admit the infringing embargoes. He can reject them, citing established case law, or refer the admissibility discussion to his colleagues. If the appeal is admitted, it can be taken to the full court.

Jurist Carlos Constantino, professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law, also assesses that the defense's options have diminished considerably.

"The vote was four for conviction and one for acquittal. Therefore, there is no way to file a broader appeal, which would be an infringement motion, as this would require three votes for conviction and two for acquittal and would require the case to be reviewed by the full court," he said.

The professor adds: “With the result obtained, only the declaration of embargoes is possible, to clarify any omission or obscure point in the ruling, which will be difficult to recognize, given the clarity of the four votes for conviction.”