Apparently, there is an indicative institutionalized regarding the legislative aspect in relation to the creation of a law that characterizes as a crime act of terrorism.
One cannot disregard how necessary to have a standard dealing on the subject, given that other countries, including some European Union has already established the characterizing acts of terror.
Perhaps the great controversy of this new bill on our national scene should be because of the terrorist crime definition.
In a report dated November 2015, the United Nations expressed about broad concepts, which can lead to wide interpretation and may result in inadequate implementation ultimately forcing move setback for human rights and fundamental freedoms that this plea body thus protects. For example, restrict public demonstrations (social and political movements).
Thus, a brief question arises: who are these human rights and fundamental freedoms that so worries the UN? To answer this question, it would be impossible not to point out the technical concepts of the institutes, however, we objectively and without reveries.
Human rights have different meanings terminology. The main one is an ideological position which has scope for defending interest’s inherent right to life, honor, freedom, dignity, property of human beings, etc. Under the critical veil of international entity, it refers to a possible interpretation with negative connotations about the founding freedom in the universal system of protection of human rights, as this may generate an unsuccessful judicious position to apply the law to the case in order to restrict rights as a situation related to the right of opinion, ie the kind of human being will express would be configured or not terrorist crime, as well as a manifestation of acts contrary to a particular entity, political ideology or even in the defense of a particular class, in its social aspect (e.g. trade union) or economic (increase in public transport fares). Indeed, violence and illegal acts are very broad concepts which involve other crimes.
The systematic rules of Fundamental Human Rights are properly inserted in the Federal Constitution of 1988, as fundamental rights and guarantees, whether individual or collective. By the way, there are certain liberties that the Brazilian State shall refrain, as the free expression of thought, sealed anonymous people (art. 5 °, IV), freedom of religious conscience (art. 5 VI) and freedom of meeting (art. 5 °, XVI). It stresses that any law under the Brazilian Constitution that restricts inserts such rights are unconstitutional and should be purged in its effectiveness, validity and effectiveness through lawsuit.
On the one hand the UN manifests itself against a bill that could restrict certain right won on the other, we can understand that even moved to objectively define their purposes. Why entity does not take the attitude of gathering body of jurists and authorities of other countries and to define the terrorist crime concept? Or even, for what reason the UN not met Countries for at least treat on the subject, since acts of terrorism that we see in news are those that annihilate people, even in the abstract, with destructive means (bombs and weapons high power), injuring the right to live. It is expected that the United Nations fulfills its political role in the maintenance of peace.
At this point we defend a universal concept of terrorism, leaving countries to adapt them internally through treaties and international agreements, without hurting their national sovereignty. It knows that terrorism is not a new and a possible conceptualization of next path phenomenon is related not only to the social aspect, economic or sociological, as well as legal, could in a comparative study to trace all their conceptual aspect, that is, as has been delimited the concept of terrorism in other countries by legislation.
What should be established in Brazilian legislation, therefore, is any horror spread either by physical or intellectual milieu, the latter being the incitement to terrorism, however, without that features a mere freedom of speech, that can hurt human rights fundamental.
In fact, what cannot happen is a passive genocide or co-authored with the terrorist, in which the state fails to preserve the human dignity of its nationals.
Also should be reserved to the State to act actively in order to promote international legal cooperation between countries increasing internal and international security further, to promote able to control and investigation tools such as the denial of entry of case particular person from another state had suspected the other country. Important note that should set a neutral jurisdiction such as the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction in crimes against humanity rather than an internal justice, so, to give the sovereignty of state entity, although some countries have not admitted altogether.
Finally, Brazil is moving slowly with respect to legislative production theme, as other countries of the globe completed their legislation. It saddens further delays to the fact that we will have international sporting events (Olympics and Paralympics), which could lead to greater legal uncertainty.
All countries must unite against this great evil that haunts this century, terrorism.