English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article aims to analyze the question of the presumption of innocence relativisation by the STF (in the HC 126.292/SP), in relation to one of the arguments used by the Court: the one that says that the superior appeals (extraordinary and special appeals) do not review the facts. Therefore – and through a deductive methodology, which stem from a general discussion about law and facts in the Kelsen-Cossio debate, as well as the modern hermeneutics affected by phenomenology –, it was analyzed how the egological theory of law criticizes the Kelsen’s normativism; subsequently, it was made a doctrinal approach about the (im)possibility of dissociation of the law in norms and facts and, at last, it was made a brief study about how the STF used the argument of that norms and facts can be separately analyzed and that this one, the facts, cannot be reviewed in the superior appeals to ease a fundamental principle. This paper concluded for the inconsistency and fragility of the above-mentioned argument of the STF, since the, according to what was propose by Cossio and according to doctrinal lessons – which, in turn, understand the law as a norms, facts and values integrality – it understood that it is not reasonable to assert that the superior appeals do not review any facts.

O DIREITO SEM FATOS: UMA CRÍTICA FILOSÓFICA E DOUTRINÁRIA JURÍDICA À LIMITAÇÃO DA PRESUNÇÃO DA INOCÊNCIA NO STF