Public defender proposes regulation of release and prison permits in MS

The Public Defender’s Office of Mato Grosso do Sul, through the Criminal Center (Nucrim) and the Penitentiary System Center (Nuspen), proposed to the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso do Sul (TJMS), through the Coordination of Criminal Execution Courts of MS (Covep/MS), a way to regulate pending permits.

In letters sent to Covep/MS, the coordinators of Nucrim and Nuspen, public defender Daniel Calemes and public defender Cahuê Urdiales, in addition to expressing concern about the procedures adopted by the Permit Center, the Civil and Military Police, as well as Agepen itself , highlighted five cases of illegal arrests and maintenance in prison, which fail to comply with CNJ Resolution No. 417/2021, which creates the National Bank of Penal Measures and Prisons (BNMP).

The most serious example is a person who continues to be held illegally in a closed regime, for approximately one year and 10 months in the PED, after a “pending issue” identified by the Permit Center.

The Nucrim coordinator explains that the issue of pending permits arises when a person receives the release document, but is faced with a supposed pending issue in their process, often inserted into the system by Agepen, which prevents their effective release. According to the coordinator, a practice rooted in the State.

“In some cases, this pending issue is legitimate, such as when the person is detained for another reason or is serving a prison sentence in another location. However, in many other situations, the pendency is irregular and inconsistent, resulting in the person being unduly detained for a considerable period”, points out the Nucrim coordinator.

The coordinators highlight not only the irreparable damage to the individual freedom of the person incarcerated in a closed regime, but also the financial implications for the public treasury, ranging from the costs of remaining in prison to the possible conviction for moral damages.

Therefore, the Nucrim and Nuspen Coordinations, in accordance with CNJ Resolution No. 417/2021 (BNMP), listed 6 proposals:

I. The regulation of the systems that must be consulted to check the presence of impediments to the release order, e.g. e-Saj from TJMS, SEEU, National Arrest Warrant Bank (BNMP), etc.;
II. The creation of a comprehensive list of impediments to compliance with the release order, based solely on a judicial decision of arrest, with a valid arrest warrant;
III. The regulation of the issuance of a recapture warrant, under the terms of art. 684 of the CPP and art. 11, sole paragraph, IV, of CNJ Resolution No. 417/2021, with the return to the regime prior to the evasion until a decision on precautionary regression of the regime is made;
IV. Compliance with the regime established in the decision indicated as an impediment, when there is an arrest order, blinding the stay in a more serious regime, with the immediate transfer to the semi-open, open or home regime, regardless of the origin of the arrest warrant;
V. That the mere existence of ongoing criminal execution in the semi-open, open, domicile or conditional release regime, with or without non-compliance with the conditions, without a new arrest/regression order, is not considered as an impediment, and the release order must be complied with ;
SAW. The creation of workflows, with the setting of tight deadlines, so that the judicial authority responsible for the release order and the impediment are notified of the non-release, with the immediate conclusion of the process to determine the appropriate measures;

Goal – The regulation, according to the Nuspen coordinator, aims to prevent Agepen from inserting arbitrary pending issues into permits, preventing the release of people who should be free.

“We have already held two meetings with Covep, TJ and Agepen, requesting regulation of this matter. After these meetings, a file was sent to the TJ, requesting the change. This is a very sad reality that demonstrates not only the irreparable damage to the individual freedom of the person incarcerated in a closed regime, but also the financial implications for the public treasury, ranging from the costs of remaining in prison to the possible conviction for moral damages. Situations like this reinforce the importance of the proposals already presented, in order to establish clear rules and standardized procedures to avoid recurrences of similar injustices”, concludes the Nuspen coordinator.

The TJ expressed interest in discussing the matter in more depth and plans a new meeting to discuss possible measures to be taken. This initiative by Nucrim and Nuspen demonstrates a joint effort to guarantee respect for individual rights and justice in the State’s criminal system.