Teresa Almeida argues that an MP should only invest when there is a possibility of securing a conviction

Former prosecutor Teresa Almeida argues that the government ministry should invest only in cases that can lead to convictions, and fears it is “nurturing a monstrous network of investigations and suspicions that everything is corruption.”

“There is a lot of common ground around the idea that all institutions are cut off from the head. This is the dismissal of this, the dismissal of that. It is very dangerous to question the institutions of the rule of law in this way. “It’s like belittling corruption. Let’s go after everything that moves,” says Teresa Almeida in an interview with the newspaper Público published today.

Teresa Almeida, now a Supreme Court judge, also speaks of abuses in requests for the removal of judges and the need to adjust very different sentences in similar cases and argues that the hierarchy of the Prosecutor’s Office (MP) must closely monitor the processes.

Regarding the fight against corruption, he points out the risks of “going after everything”, emphasizing that “the principle of legality is not entirely true.”

“It does not oblige the deputy to monitor everything, it obliges him to initiate an investigation, to open an inquiry when there is a suspicion with minimal grounds that someone has committed a crime. These two conditions must be met in order for it to be possible “There will be an investigation. It is not because there is news or someone is asking a question. A preliminary assessment must be made,” he asserts.

He says that the much-discussed slowness in justice “exists primarily in the most complex processes and ultimately makes life miserable for citizens”, but admits that despite the resources of the Constitutional Court, “there is often an abuse of an institution that aims at things completely different “

“The Supreme Court has said this in its decisions, as it has with motions to dismiss a judge,” he adds.

When asked whether measures could be taken, such as lifting the suspensive effect of appeals to the Constitutional Court in some cases, she replies that “this is not a solution for all situations, but there may be more serious restrictions.”

“This issue also arises at earlier stages of the process. It is necessary to discuss the existence of an investigation stage. Perhaps this issue will be considered during the constitutional review,” he emphasizes.

Regarding mega-processes, he states that it is “very difficult” to imagine a process “that cannot be divided into themes.”

“There are very famous people who have passed away, and the processes continue because there are other defendants. They are still in the Constitutional Court. This is incomplete justice, this is not full justice,” he believes, recalling. : “In case of separation and in case of conviction, they may be convicted earlier. But in case of non-separation, they sometimes spend 10 years, 15 years, dragging out a situation that may not end in conviction. And that also destroys lives.”

When asked about the scale of the charges in cases such as Operation Marquis or BES, she replies: “It is absolutely impossible.”

“I recognize that there are situations in which the facts are so intertwined that it is very difficult to distinguish them. But these are very rare cases,” argues the prosecutor, for whom “instead of chasing everything that moves, you need to look at what is viable.”

“The deputy does not accuse for fun. He doesn’t even have time for that. He cannot invest in processes where there is no factual content or where evidence cannot be obtained. (…) You end up feeding a monstrous web of investigations and suspicions, and that it is all corruption, which is very negative for the democratic rule of law,” he states.

Sometimes “you go through this for years for nothing,” noted Teresa Almeida, to whom the hierarchy should pay attention: “Colleagues, especially young ones, think they are doing well. This is their duty. This is a completely reasonable suspicion. The facts must constitute the crime. And then we need to understand whether the investigation is viable.”