Bolsonaro verdict: Brazilian democracy is now on trial.

In many ways, Brazil is a smaller microcosm of the United States. Both countries are highly polarised nations, where the dividing lines between left and right are very clear and not conducive to political compromise or the exchange of goodwill and collective good faith, both between themselves and in relation to the country's constitution.

In any civilised society, the importance of justice is fundamental and unequivocal. Sentences must reflect not only the justice applied in a court of law, but also the appearance that, given the facts and the law, the verdict handed down was proportionate and fair, considering the charges that led to that person's conviction. In short, it must be perceived that justice has been done for the decision to be considered legitimate and well-founded. 

In this case, the defendant is seventy years old. Bolsonaro was duly convicted of crimes of the highest order, but can it really be said that a sentence of more than 27 years is based solely on judicial considerations and the application of the law? My view is that this verdict is unfair and unreasonable. The defendant is undoubtedly guilty of the charges against him, but this sentence smacks of revenge, an effort to settle political scores within the august confines of the judiciary.

Brazilian democracy should know better than that. Bolsonaro will exercise his constitutional right to appeal before a full panel of eleven members. However, the grounds for a successful appeal cannot be based on a retrial based on the merits of the facts. The appeal is procedural in nature and can also be argued on the basis of the court's competent jurisdiction. If legal irregularities cannot be proven, evidence based on the facts cannot be overturned on appeal. If his appeal is denied, Bolsonaro could receive a sentence of up to forty years.

In the meantime, Bolsonaro remains under house arrest, with his supporters hoping that his party will win next year's presidential elections. This could lead to a future amnesty or pardon law after the fact, which would not be considered entirely legitimate under the law. In practice, this power belongs to the president and, if exercised, cannot be revoked during that president's term. However, a subsequent government could overturn these actions with a future parliamentary majority. Both chambers would have to approve such a law.

And then there is the question of Trump: will the American president make an effort to spirit Bolsonaro out of the country in order to politically contest and reverse the court's verdict? It would be inadvisable for Trump to proceed in this manner, as it would have monumental consequences for relations between Brazil and the United States, but unfortunately, at the end of the day, Trump is Trump.