1

N5-v3 Supremo Tribunal Federal 9 de fevereiro de 2021

Essa pesquisa foi realizada em bases de dados bases de jurisprudecircncia e

publicaccedilotildees nacionais e internacionais conforme referecircncias indicadas

Todas as decisotildees recuperadas relacionadas ao objeto de pesquisa satildeo

aqui inseridas e natildeo refletem necessariamente a posiccedilatildeo do STF Caso natildeo

encontrado precedentes especiacuteficos acerca do tema de interesse termos

mais abrangentes satildeo utilizados Nessa pesquisa os casos foram listados

por ordem alfabeacuteticas dos paiacuteses nos quais foram encontradas decisotildees a

respeito do tema nas cortes constitucionais ou oacutergatildeos internacionais Os

principais termos de busca utilizados foram legally obtained evidence to

be admitted into evidence exceptions to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine (fruits doctrine) attenuation

doctrine exclusionary rule admissibility of hacked or leaked evidence piece of illegal evidence that benefits the

accused Caso natildeo encontrados precedentes especiacuteficos acerca do tema de interesse termos mais abrangentes

satildeo utilizados A breve descriccedilatildeo do entendimento resulta da anaacutelise de decisotildees em geral em idioma

estrangeiro de modo que a fidelidade agraves fontes poderaacute ser aferida no inteiro teor

ADMISSIBILIDADE DA PROVA ILIacuteCITA1

Aacutefrica do Sul

Singh e outros v S (2016) Suprema Corte de Apelaccedilatildeo da Aacutefrica do Sul Operaccedilatildeo

secreta conduzida pelo serviccedilo de poliacutecia da Aacutefrica do Sul sequestro e assalto a

caminhotildees nas rodovias exclusatildeo de provas apenas se tornarem o julgamento injusto

ou de outra forma prejudicial agrave administraccedilatildeo da justiccedila

Beacutelgica

1392011 Corte Constitucional da Beacutelgica ldquoIt is not contrary to the Convention that

illegally obtained evidence in criminal matters can withstand being deemed null and void

unless under certain circumstances eg where its use infringes the right to a fair

hearing (hellip)According to Court of Cassation case-law the fact of evidence having been

obtained illegally does not necessarily result in the evidence having to be discarded

According to this case-law there are three cases when such evidence must not be

examined 1 where the evidence has been obtained in breach of the formalities

prescribed on pain of nullity 2 where the irregularity committed has undermined the

credibility of the evidence itself and 3 where the use of such evidence is incompatible

with a fair hearing (hellip)rdquo

1 Admissibilidade de provas iliacutecitas em Cortes Constitucionais (Colocircmbia Itaacutelia Espanha Portugal Franccedila

Alemanha) Supremas Cortes (Estados Unidos Canadaacute Meacutexico Israel Iacutendia) e Tribunais Internacionais Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos Tribunal de Justiccedila da Uniatildeo Europeia Corte Internacional de Justiccedila Tribunal Africano dos Direitos do Homem

2

Canadaacute

Hogan v R [1975] 2 SCR 574 Suprema Corte do Canadaacute ldquoCriminal LawmdashMotor

VehiclesmdashBreathalizermdashRefusal of right to counselmdashAdmissibility of certificate of

analysismdashCriminal Code ss 235 236 237mdashCanadian Bill of Rights s 2(c)(ii)

The car driven by the appellant had swerved over the sidewalk and was stopped by a

constable who in conversation with the appellant noticed a strong smell of alcohol on

his breath blood shot eyes and a flushed face He then gave him a breathaliser demand

The appellant at the police station asked to speak to his lawyer before taking the test

This request was refused and the appellant was given the alternative of either providing

the breath sample forthwith or being charged with refusing to provide a breath sample

The appellant then submitted to the test which indicated a reading of 230 milligrams of

alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood At trial the certificate of analysis was admitted in

evidence and the appellant convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level greater than

008 contrary to s 236 of the Criminal Code The conviction was affirmed by the Appeal

Division

Held (Spence and Laskin JJ dissenting) The appeal should be dismissedrdquo

Colocircmbia

Auto 22707 Corte Constitucional da Colocircmbia ldquoSOLICITUD DE NULIDAD SENTENCIA

DE LA CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL [T-233 de 2007 proferida por la Sala Quinta de Revisioacuten

de Tutelas de la Corte Constitutional]-Oportunidad por presentacioacuten dentro de los tres

diacuteas siguientes a la notificacioacuten NULIDAD SENTENCIAS DE TUTELA PROFERIDAS POR

SALAS DE REVISION-Criterios de procedencia SOLICITUD DE NULIDAD SENTENCIA DE LA

CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL-Desconocimiento precedente en materia de prueba iliacutecita y

nulidad del proceso judicial PRECEDENTE JURISPRUDENCIAL-Prueba obtenida con

violacioacuten del debido proceso DERECHO COMPARADO-Prueba iliacutecita y nulidad del

proceso judicial JURISPRUDENCIA-Prueba iliacutecita no contamina el resto del material

probatoriordquo

SU 159 (2002) Corte Constitucional da Colocircmbia Acusaccedilatildeo e sentenccedila criminal processo iniciado a partir de notiacutecia divulgada via gravaccedilatildeo obtida de forma ilegal ldquoLa exclusioacuten del proceso penal de una grabacioacuten telefoacutenica iliacutecita y violatoria del derecho a la intimidad constituye una aplicacioacuten correcta del artiacuteculo 29 inciso uacuteltimo de la Constitucioacuten y la existencia y la divulgacioacuten periodiacutestica de dicha grabacioacuten no vician todo el procedimiento ni contaminan todo el acervo probatorio asiacute eacutesta haya sido elemento integral de la noticia criminis siempre que la resolucioacuten de acusacioacuten y la

3

sentencia condenatoria se hayan fundado en pruebas separadas independientes y autoacutenomas de eacutesta y suficientes para demostrar la ocurrencia de la conducta tiacutepica y la responsabilidad penal del procesadordquo Casos relevantes sobre valoraccedilatildeo da prova da Corte Constitucional da Colocircmbia SU-15902 C-59105 C-115405 T-05706 C-21007 T-23307 A227 DE 2007 T-59009

Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos

Lori Berenson Mejiacutea v Peru (2004) Detenccedilatildeo e posterior julgamento por tribunal militar

com restriccedilotildees a direito de defesa ilegalidade probatoacuteria afirmada como decorrecircncia

do reconhecimento da violaccedilatildeo das garantias do juiz natural natildeo reconhecimento da

imprestabilidade da prova prova transposta do juiacutezo militar ao juiacutezo comum

Corte Internacional de Justiccedila

Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania) 1949

Canal de Corfu responsabilidade estatal por danos no mar doutrina da passagem

inocente documento obtido em violaccedilatildeo do territoacuterio do oponente premissas

diplomaacuteticas regra excludente violaccedilatildeo de soberania territorial ldquoInternational Court

of Justice (ICJ) triggered debates on the existence of an lsquoexclusionary rulersquo in

international lawrdquo2 [Case Summary]

Admissibility of Hacked or Leaked Emails

Caratube International Oil Company LLP v The Republic of Kazakhstan case ldquoIn a more

recent case involving the Kazakhstan government the tribunal reached an admissibility

decision that could come to be seen as a watershed The arbitral tribunal basically stated

that documents protected by legal professional privilege cannot be admitted as

evidence but others could be Caratube International Oil Company and American-

national Devincci Salah Hourani who were suing Kazakhstan over the alleged seizure of

their oil exploration and production rights wanted leaked documents that were now

publicly available due to the WikiLeaks page to be considered by the tribunal as

evidencerdquo 3

2 Fallah Sara Mansour The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International Courts and

Tribunals In The Law amp Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Online Publication Date 26 Aug 2020 In Volume 19 Issue 2 Pages 147-176 Disponiacutevel em

httpsbrillcomviewjournalslape192article-p147_2xmlref_FN000143 3 Ortiz Ricardo Calvillo Admissibility of Hacked Emails as Evidence in Arbitration May 14 2018 Disponiacutevel em

httpsblogslawnyuedutransnational201805admissibility-of-hacked-emails-as-evidence-in-arbitration_ftn21

4

Conoco Phillips Case4 ldquoAfter issuing the award the tribunal had to deal with new

evidence presented due to information available in WikiLeaks This case concerned the

expropriation of oil and gas assets by the Venezuelan government Conoco Phillips

claimed that Venezuela illegally forced it to cede its majority holding in certain oil and

gas projects and was unwilling to negotiate fair compensation for the governmentrsquos

taking The tribunal found that Venezuela breached its obligation to negotiate in good

faith in order to reach an acceptable settlement between the parties After the award

was issued Venezuela sent a letter to the tribunal contesting this decision in which

Venezuela requested a new hearing to address the ruling on lack of good faith

Specifically the letter cited new evidence obtained via WikiLeaks including

communications between diplomatic officials in the United States Embassy in Caracas

and Conoco Phillipsrsquo executives discussing the Venezuelan governmentrsquos offer to

compensate the company for expropriation using market value standards instead of

their previous offer of book value Venezuela argued that this contradicted the tribunalrsquos

conclusion that Venezuela negotiated in bad faith Ultimately however the tribunal

addressed neither the merits nor the admissibility question raised by this evidence

instead it found that it did not have the power to reconsider its decision However one

of the arbitrators issued a dissenting opinion which relied on the revelations contained

in the WikiLeaks cables effectively opening a new window by considering leaked

information as evidence in an arbitration procedurerdquo5

Estados Unidos

Kansas v Ventris 556 US 586 (2009) ldquoWhether evidence obtained in violation of

constitution guarantees while otherwise inadmissible at trial can be admitted for

purposes of impeachment of a witnesss testimony depends upon the nature of the

constitutional guarantee that is violated When the constitutional guarantee against

compelled self-incrimination is violated it may not be admitted at trial for any purpose

including impeachment of witness testimony When the constitutional guarantee

against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated the admissibility of the evidence

thereby obtained for purposes of impeachment of witness testimony is a question to be

decided by a balancing of the competing interests rather than an automatic exclusion

Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right to counsel is not automatically

inadmissible for all purposes while inadmissible for purposes of affirmatively proving

guilt it may be admitted for purposes of witness impeachment because the need to

prevent perjury and to assure the integrity of the trial process outweigh the perceived

deterrent effect on police officersrdquo [Resumo]

4 Idem 5 Ortiz Ricardo Calvillo Admissibility of Hacked Emails as Evidence in Arbitration May 14 2018 Disponiacutevel em

httpsblogslawnyuedutransnational201805admissibility-of-hacked-emails-as-evidence-in-arbitration_ftn21

5

Wikileaks

Bryana Bible v United Student Aid Funds Inc (2015) Tribunal de Apelaccedilatildeo dos Estados

Unidos da Ameacuterica do Seacutetimo Circuito Documentos e evidecircncias liberados por terceiros

no WikiLeaks admissatildeo das provas informaccedilotildees em domiacutenio puacuteblico acessiacuteveis sem

dificuldades indevidas (notiacutecias)

Exceccedilotildees agrave teoria do fruit of the poisonous tree6

dissipation of taint

Murray v United States 487 US 533 480 (1988) Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos

ldquoldquoThe exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized

during an unlawful search Beyond that the exclusionary rule also prohibits the

introduction of derivative evidence both tangible and testimonial that is the product of

the primary evidence or that is otherwise acquired as a result of the unlawful search up

to the point at which the connection with the unlawful search becomes acuteso attenuated

as to dissipate the taintrdquo7

Independent source

Segura v United States 468 US 796 (1984) A teoria da fonte independente ldquoremete agrave

inaplicabilidade da teoria do fruit of the poisonous tree nos casos em que a prova deriva

de uma fonte diversa da maculada pelo viacutecio da ilicitude Ela foi o fundamento da

manutenccedilatildeo de condenaccedilatildeo de indiviacuteduo que teve seu domiciacutelio ilicitamente invadido

por policiais e quando estes estavam no local outros policiais ali chegaram munidos de

competente mandado e lograram apreender drogasrdquo 8

Inevitable discovery

Nix v Williams 467 US 431 (1984) ldquoA teoria da descoberta inevitaacutevel eacute semelhante agrave

da fonte independente com a diferenccedila de a prova jaacute ter sido obtida de maneira iliacutecita

mas se chega agrave conclusatildeo que ela teria sido certamente descoberta licitamente eg

pelo segundo grupo de policiais que ao dar cumprimento agrave mandado judicial descobre

6 Para Thiago de Filippo as trecircs limitaccedilotildees agrave fruits doctrine parecem ter sido adotadas pelo Brasil por meio da Lei

116902008 que alterou a redaccedilatildeo do art 157 do Coacutedigo de Processo Penal (Filippo Thiago Baldani Gomes de Buscas domiciliares sem mandado e provas iliacutecitas reflexotildees acerca do julgamento do recurso extraordinaacuterio 603616 agrave luz do Direito dos Estados Unidos Cadernos Juriacutedicos Satildeo Paulo ano 17 n 44 p 131-146 Julho-Setembro2016)

7 Filippo Thiago Baldani Gomes de Buscas domiciliares sem mandado e provas iliacutecitas reflexotildees acerca do julgamento do recurso extraordinaacuterio 603616 agrave luz do Direito dos Estados Unidos Cadernos Juriacutedicos Satildeo Paulo ano 17 n 44 p 131-146 Julho-Setembro2016

8 Idem

6

que os objetos iliacutecitos jaacute foram apreendidos pelo primeiro grupo de policiais que invadiu

o domiciacutelio sem que tivessem obtido a competente ordemrdquo 9

Franccedila

Acoacuterdatildeo n 1119 (2020) Tribunal de Cassaccedilatildeo da Franccedila Cacircmara Social Demissatildeo de

empregado maacute conduta envio de informaccedilotildees a empresa concorrente dados contidos

no processamento de dados do empregado produccedilatildeo de provas que satildeo ilegais sob a

Lei de Proteccedilatildeo de Dados natildeo satildeo sistematicamente inadmissiacuteveis em processos

judiciais (notiacutecias)

Iacutendia

Ukha Kolhe v State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India 1963 1963 AIR 1531 1964

SCR (1) 926 ldquoIn this case the police had fixed a tape-recording instrument to a telephone

with the consent of only one of the parties to record the conversation however the

other side contended that the tape-recorded conversation had been procured through

illegal means In this background it was held that lsquoeven if evidence is illegally obtained

it is admissiblersquordquo10

Poorna Mal v Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation) Supreme Court of

India 1974 (1975 AIR 67 1975 SCR (2) 104) A Corte decidiu que ldquowhile ruling on the

question of admissibility of material seized in a search alleged to be vitiated by illegality

the Court held that lsquounless there is an express or necessary implied prohibition in the

Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not

liable to be shut outrsquordquo11

State of MP through CBI v Paltan Mallah Supreme Court of India 2005 ldquoIn India the

evidence obtained under illegal search is not completely excluded unless it has caused

serious prejudice to the accused The discretion has always been given to the court to

decide whether such evidence is to be accepted or notrdquo (hellip) lsquoThe general provisions

given in the Criminal Procedure Code are to be treated as guidelines and if at all there is

9 Idem 10 Bharat Chugh Taahaa Khan Rethinking the ldquoFruits of the poisonous treersquo doctrine should lsquoendsrsquo justify the

lsquomeansrsquo June 15 2020 httpswwwscconlinecomblogpost20200615rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-

the-ends-justify-the-means 11 Bharat Chugh Taahaa Khan Rethinking the ldquoFruits of the poisonous treersquo doctrine should lsquoendsrsquo justify the

lsquomeansrsquo June 15 2020 httpswwwscconlinecomblogpost20200615rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine-should-

the-ends-justify-the-means

7

any minor violation still the court can accept the evidence and the courts have got

discretionary power to either accept it or reject itrsquordquo

Casos em que a Suprema Corte da Iacutendia natildeo admitiu prova ilegalmente obtida por

exercer um fator injusto ao acusado Umesh Kumar v State of AP Selvi v State of

Karnataka KS Puttaswamy v Union of India

Israel

CrimA 512198 Suprema Corte de Israel (High Court of Justice) 2006 ldquoEvidence may

be deemed inadmissible in criminal cases due to the manner in which it has been

obtained if two conditions are met simultaneously The evidence must have been

obtained illegally and admitting it in the trial must have a significant negative impact on

the accuseds rights to a fair trial Illegally obtained evidence can be excluded if admitting

it in the trial would violate the fairness of the proceedings in a substantial way for an

improper purpose and to an excessive degree This balancing formula is to be applied at

the discretion of the court in each individual case taking into account three main points

The first point is the nature and severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the

evidence The second is the influence of the illegality on the evidence ie whether it

makes the evidence less credible and whether the evidence exists independently from

the illegality Finally courts should consider the social benefit or harm that would result

from exclusion Here the primary concerns are the usefulness of the evidence and the

seriousness of the crime of which the defendant stands accusedrdquo

Meacutexico

Amparo Directo en Revisioacuten 38862013 Suprema Corte de Justiccedila da Naccedilatildeo do Meacutexico Geolocation without judicial warrant ndash ldquoIn this criminal case the First Chamber decided on the limits of the right to privacy and private communications The defendant argued that the use of geolocation of the phone of the victim should be dismissed as evidence in the trial in which he stood accused for kidnapping because on the one hand the victim had not authorized to reveal private communications and on the other hand this had been done without judicial warrant In a 3 to 2 decision the Court found that when there is a criminal investigation in which there is reasonable suspicion of a real and imminent danger for the victim the right to protect private communications is inapplicable Accordingly in cases in which the authority has reason to believe there is a real and imminent danger then it can require without judicial warrant telecommunication companies for private communications in which the victim had intervened In all other cases the Court considered a judicial authorization is required to allow the police to access private communications for criminal investigationsrdquo 12

12 Albert Richard and Landau David and Faraguna Pietro and Drugda Šimon The ImiddotCONnect-Clough Center 2016

Global Review of Constitutional Law (August 3 2017) The ImiddotCONnect-Clough Center 2016 Global Review of

8

Reino Unido

Wikileaks

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Bancoult (No 2)

[2008] ldquoNa Inglaterra em 2017 a Suprema Corte admitiu por unanimidade a

admissibilidade de documentos sigilosos vazados publicamente no conhecido episoacutedio

Wikileakrdquo13

Repuacuteblica Checa

Judgment No III UacuteS 407117 of 31 July 2018 - Eligibility of secret recording of court

deliberation as evidence

ldquoIn a criminal matter the defendant challenged the impartiality of one of the judges

deciding his case based on an unauthorized recording of deliberation of the judicial

panel In the recording the judge made offensive remarks about the defendant and his

attorney The challenge was denied by appellate court based on the fact that the

recording was made without knowledge of the judges and was therefore inadmissible

as evidence CC recognized that there is between the right to a fair trial of the defendant

and the right to privacy of the judge and conducted the test of proportionality to balance

them It noted that the recording might have contained parts where the judicial panel

was deliberating andor voting and this type of information is confidential However

such information was not part of the evidence during the determination of impartiality

of the judge because the judgersquos comments were definitely not part of deliberations or

voting of the panel CC concluded that the recording could not be excluded from

evidence on this basis It understood the recording as a piece of valuable information

concerning the impartiality of the judge and stated that in this particular situation there

were no other possible pieces of evidence of similar information value that would

interfere in a lesser amount with the judgersquos right to privacy According to the CC

without the recording the right to a fair trial of the defendant would be almost

impossible to enforce effectively while the intensity of interference with the right to

privacy of the judge was minor because the judgersquos remarks were made during the

decision-making process Also the CC noted that the recording effectively cast doubt on

the objective element of judicial independence the public trust in independent

decision-making of that particular judge in this case was diminished For this reason

Constitutional Law ISBN 9780692925164 Published by the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy Available at SSRN httpsssrncomabstract=3014378

13 Breda Juliano Admissibilidade processual das mensagens reveladas pelo The Intercept Conjur 8 de fevereiro de 2021 Disponiacutevel em httpswwwconjurcombr2021-fev-08breda-admissibilidade-processual-mensagens-interceptfbclid=IwAR1Aua12oOez-QqCARt2Kl0CyrfbgbCqmLgTNRC_t2AtqJ07cSJEP64zO58_ftnref5

9

the CC concluded that the previous decisions infringed the defendantrsquos right to a fair

trial and annulled themrdquo14

Suiacuteccedila

Decisatildeo 4A_362 (2013) Supremo Tribunal Federal Suiacuteccedilo Gravaccedilatildeo de viacutedeo obtido

ilegalmente sentenccedila natildeo violaccedilatildeo de poliacuteticas puacuteblicas Idem 4A_448 (2013)

Tribunal de Justiccedila da Uniatildeo Europeia

Persia International Bank plc v Council of the European Union (2013) Poliacutetica externa e

de seguranccedila medidas restritivas contra o Iratilde prevenir proliferaccedilatildeo nuclear

congelamento de fundos admissatildeo de documentos apresentados oriundos do

Wikileaks natureza possivelmente ilegal direitos de defesa direito agrave proteccedilatildeo judicial

eficaz

Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos

Gaumlfgen v Germany ldquoTorture or inhuman treatment or threats of the same may not be

used even in situations where there is a risk to the life of an individual Where evidence

is obtained as a result of prohibited methods of investigations such as to constitute a

breach of Article 3 ECHR Article 6 ECHR will only be infringed if the evidence is relied on

for a conviction Failure to exclude evidence obtained following a confession extracted

by means of inhuman treatment does not constitute a breach of the right to a fair trial

if that failure had no bearing on the conviction and sentence or on the overall fairness

of the trialrdquo

NN e TA v Beacutelgica (2008) Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos Divoacutercio correspondecircncias trocadas entre esposo e outro provas no processo natildeo enquadramento das regras de sigilo profissional documentos trazidos aos autos natildeo os torna puacuteblicos tendo em vista as restriccedilotildees de acesso aos arquivos do caso Jalloh v Alemanha (2006) Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos Preso por traacutefico de drogas recusa em tomar um emeacutetico para regurgitar o que havia engolido provas obtidas agrave forccedila e usadas contra o peticionaacuterio intervenccedilatildeo meacutedica forccedilada deve ser convincentemente justificada sobre os fatos de um caso especiacutefico escrutiacutenio rigoroso de todas as circunstacircncias circundantes autoridades devem demonstrar que levaram em conta meacutetodos alternativos de recuperaccedilatildeo das evidecircncias LL v Franccedila (2007) Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos Divoacutercio decisatildeo menciona relatoacuterio meacutedico confidencial documento meacutedico utilizado em base

14 Idem paacuteg 82

10

secundaacuteria e mesma soluccedilatildeo poderia ter sido alcanccedilada sem o referido relatoacuterio15 (nota)

15 Na decisatildeo recorrida (Tribunal de Cassaccedilatildeo francecircs) a Corte ldquoafirmou que a ilegalidade das provas sob a Lei de

Proteccedilatildeo de Dados natildeo deve levar sistematicamente a sua decisatildeo inadmissiacutevelrdquo (notiacutecias)

11

Referecircncias

Albert Richard and Landau David and Faraguna Pietro and Drugda Šimon ImiddotCONnect-Clough

Center 2019 Global Review of Constitutional Law (November 26 2020) The ImiddotCONnect-Clough

Center 2019 Global Review of Constitutional Law ISBN 978-0-692-15916-3 Published by the

Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy U of Texas Law Public Law Research

Paper No 727 FSU College of Law Public Law Research Paper No 934 Available at SSRN

httpsssrncomabstract=3736382

Albert Richard and Landau David and Faraguna Pietro and Drugda Šimon ImiddotCONnect-Clough

Center 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law (October 18 2019) The ImiddotCONnect-Clough

Center 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law ISBN 978-0-692-15916-3 Published by the

Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy (2019) U of Texas Law Public Law

Research Paper No 711 FSU College of Law Public Law Research Paper No 921 Available at

SSRN httpsssrncomabstract=3471638 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn3471638

Albert Richard and Landau David and Faraguna Pietro and Drugda Šimon The ImiddotCONnect-

Clough Center 2017 Global Review of Constitutional Law (July 19 2018) The ImiddotCONnect-Clough

Center 2017 Global Review of Constitutional Law ISBN 978-0-692-15916-3 Published by the

Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy FSU College of Law Public Law

Research Paper No 888 U of Texas Law Public Law Research Paper Available at SSRN

httpsssrncomabstract=3215613 or httpdxdoiorg102139ssrn3215613

Albert Richard and Landau David and Faraguna Pietro and Drugda Šimon The ImiddotCONnect-

Clough Center 2016 Global Review of Constitutional Law (August 3 2017) The ImiddotCONnect-

Clough Center 2016 Global Review of Constitutional Law ISBN 9780692925164 Published by

the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy Available at

SSRN httpsssrncomabstract=3014378

Breda Juliano Admissibilidade processual das mensagens reveladas pelo The Intercept

Conjur 8 de fevereiro de 2021 Disponiacutevel em httpswwwconjurcombr2021-fev-08breda-

admissibilidade-processual-mensagens-interceptfbclid=IwAR1Aua12oOez-

QqCARt2Kl0CyrfbgbCqmLgTNRC_t2AtqJ07cSJEP64zO58_ftnref5

Bharat Chugh Taahaa Khan Rethinking the ldquoFruits of the poisonous treersquo doctrine should

lsquoendsrsquo justify the lsquomeansrsquo June 15 2020 Disponiacutevel em

httpswwwscconlinecomblogpost20200615rethinking-the-fruits-of-the-poisonous-

tree-doctrine-should-the-ends-justify-the-means

CHAVARRIacuteA Ana Belem Garciacutea La Prueba en la Funcioacuten Jurisdiccional de la Corte

Interamericana de Derechos Humanos Corte Nacional de Direitos Humanos Meacutexico 2016

Fallah Sara Mansour The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International

Courts and Tribunals In The Law amp Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Online

Publication Date 26 Aug 2020 In Volume 19 Issue 2 Pages 147-176

12

Filippo Thiago Baldani Gomes de Buscas domiciliares sem mandado e provas iliacutecitas reflexotildees

acerca do julgamento do recurso extraordinaacuterio 603616 agrave luz do Direito dos Estados Unidos

Cadernos Juriacutedicos Satildeo Paulo ano 17 n 44 p 131-146 Julho-Setembro2016

GUTIEacuteRREZ Juan Felipe Saacutenchez e outros Flexibilizacioacuten probatoria y equidad propuestas para

la justicia del posconflicto Universidad Santo Tomaacutes Via inveniendi et iudicandi vol 14 n 1

2019

JAIN NITYA Can an Arbitral Tribunal Admit Evidence Obtained through a Cyber-Attack

Kluwer Arbitration Blog 2019

MOURA Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis e outros Provas Iliacutecitas e o Sistema Interamericano de

Proteccedilatildeo dos Direitos Humanos Relatoacuterio - Brasil 2009 Biblioteca Juriacutedica Virtual del Instituto

de Investigaciones Juriacutedicas de La Universidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico

PAUacuteL Aacutelvaro Admissibility of evidence before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Revista Direito da Fundaccedilatildeo Getuacutelio Vargas vol 13 n 2 2017 Disponiacutevel em

httpswwwscielobrscielophpscript=sci_arttextamppid=S1808-24322017000200653

TORRES CHEDRAUI Ana Mariacutea An analysis of the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation

of human rights in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Tilburg

Law Review v 15 p 205-234 2011 Disponiacutevel em

httpswwwresearchgatenetpublication286237562_An_analysis_of_the_exclusion_of_evid

ence_obtained_in_violation_of_human_rights_in_light_of_the_jurisprudence_of_the_Europe

an_Court_of_Human_Rightslink601533fb45851517ef26bde9download

Bases de Dados e de Jurisprudecircncia

Base de Decisotildees do Sistema Juriacutedico da Iacutendia ndash Kanoon Disponiacutevel em httpsindiankanoonorg Base de Jurisprudecircncia da Comissatildeo de Veneza (Codices - Infobase on Constitution Case Law of the Venice Commission) Disponiacutevel em httpwwwcodicescoeintNXTgatewaydllf=templatesampfn=defaulthtm Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos Disponiacutevel em httpswwwcorteidhorcrindexcfmlang=en Tribunal Constitucional Federal da Alemanha Disponiacutevel em httpswwwbundesverfassungsgerichtdeSiteGlobalsFormsSucheENEntscheidungensuche_Formularhtmlnn=5403310ampfacettedYear=2020amplanguage_=en Suprema Corte do Canadaacute Disponiacutevel em httpsscc-csccacase-dossierinfosearch-recherche-engaspx Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da Ameacuterica Disponiacutevel em httpswwwsupremecourtgovopinionsopinionsaspx

13

Secretaria de Altos Estudos Pesquisas e Gestatildeo da Informaccedilatildeo

Coordenadoria de Difusatildeo da Informaccedilatildeo

Jurisprudecircncia Internacional