Questões de Concursos Inglês

As questões 75 a 78 referem–se ao texto a seguir.

In recent years there have been suggestions that, instead of raising sheep, Australia should be raising kangaroos, which (unlike sheep) are native Australian species that are adapted to Australian plants and climates. It is claimed that the soft paws of kangaroos are less damaging to soil than are the hard hooves of sheep. Kangaroo meat is lean, healthy, and (in my opinion) absolutely delicious. In addition to their meat, kangaroos yield valuable hides¹. All of those points are cited as arguments to support replacing sheep herding with kangaroo ranching.
However, that proposal faces real obstacles, both biological and cultural ones. Unlike sheep, kangaroos are not herd animals that will docilely obey one shepherd and a dog, or that can be rounded up and marched obediently up ramps into trucks for shipment to the slaughterhouse. Instead, kangaroo ranchers have to hire hunters to chase down and shoot their kangaroos one by one. Further problems with kangaroos are their mobility and ability to jump fences: if you invest in promoting growth of a kangaroo population on your property, and if your kangaroos perceive some inducement to move (such as rain falling somewhere els(E), your valuable crop of kangaroos may end up 30 miles away on somebody else?s property. Kangaroo meat is accepted in Germany and some is exported there, but the sale of kangaroo meat faces cultural obstacles elsewhere. For Australians, kangaroo meat has little appeal, and they continue to prefer their more traditional types of meat, especially lamb and beef. Many Australian animal welfare advocates oppose kangaroo harvesting, not taking into consideration the fact that living conditions and slaughter methods are much crueler for domestic sheep and cattle than for wild kangaroos. The U.S. explicitly forbids the importation of kangaroo meat because we find the beasts cute, and because a congressman?s wife heard that kangaroos are endangered. Some kangaroo species are indeed endangered, but ironically the species actually harvested for meat are abundant pest animals in Australia.

(DIAMOND, J. Collapse. New York: Penguin, 2005. Adaptado) ¹ hides = skins

Leia o texto para responder às questões:


The Right to a “Custody Hearing” under International Law

by Maria Laura Canineu
February 3, 2014

        A person who is arrested has a right to be brought promptly before a judge. This is a longstanding and fundamental principle of international law, crucial for ensuring that the person’s arrest, treatment, and any ongoing detention are lawful.
        Yet, until now, Brazil has not respected this right. Detainees often go months before seeing a judge. For instance, in São Paulo state, which houses 37 percent of Brazil’s total prison population, most detainees are not brought before a judge for at least three months. The risk of ill-treatment is often highest during the initial stages of detention, when police are questioning a suspect. The delay makes detainees more vulnerable to torture and other serious forms of mistreatment by abusive police officers.
        In 2012, the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reported that it had received “repeated and consistent accounts of torture and ill-treatment” in São Paulo and other Brazilian states, “committed by, in particular, the military and civil police.” The torture had allegedly occurred in police custody or at the moment of arrest, on the street, inside private homes, or in hidden outdoor areas, and was described as “gratuitous violence, as a form of punishment, to extract confessions, and as a means of extortion.”
        In addition to violating the rights of detainees, these abusive practices make it more difficult for the police to establish the kind of public trust that is often crucial for effective crime control. These practices undermine legitimate efforts to promote public security and curb violent crime, and thus have a negative impact on Brazilian society as a whole.
        The right to be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay is enshrined in treaties long ago ratified by Brazil, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for interpreting the ICCPR, has determined that the delay between the arrest of an accused and the time before he is brought before a judicial authority “should not exceed a few days,” even during states of emergency.
        Other countries in Latin America have incorporated this right into their domestic law. For instance, in Argentina, the federal Criminal Procedure Code requires that in cases of arrest without a judicial order, the detainee must be brought to a competent judicial authority within six hours.
        In contrast, Brazil’s criminal procedure code requires that when an adult is arrested in flagrante and held in police custody, only the police files of the case need to be presented to the judge within 24 hours, not the actual detainee. Judges evaluate the legality of the arrest and make the decision about whether to order continued detention or other precautionary measures based solely on the written documents provided by the police.
        The code establishes a maximum of 60 days for the first judicial hearing with the detainee, but does not explicitly say when this period begins. In practice, this often means that police in Brazil can keep people detained, with formal judicial authorization, for several months, without giving the detainee a chance to actually see a judge.
        According to the code, the only circumstance in which police need to bring a person before the judge immediately applies to cases of crimes not subject to bail in which arresting officer was not able to exhibit the arrest order to the person arrested at the time of arrest. Otherwise, the detainee may also not see a judge for several months.

                                         (www.hrw.org. Editado e adaptado)

Leia o trecho abaixo e responda às questões de 41 a 45.

Brazilian Forces Claim Victory in Gang Haven

RIO DE JANEIRO – In a quick and decisive military operation, Brazilian security forces took control of this city?s most notorious slum on Sunday, celebrating victory over drug gangs after a weeklong battle.
In the early afternoon, the military police raised the flags of Brazil and Rio de Janeiro atop a building on the highest hill in the Alemão shantytown complex, providing a rare moment of happiness and celebration in a decades–long battle to rid this city?s violent slums of drug gangs. An air of calm and relief swept through the neighborhood, as residents opened their windows and began walking the streets. Dozens of children ran from their houses in shorts and bikinis to jump into a swimming pool that used to belong to a gang leader. Residents congregated around televisions in bars and restaurants, cheering for the police as if they were cheering for their favorite soccer teams. "Now the community is ours," Jovelino Ferreira, a 60–year–old pastor, said, his eyes filling with tears. "This time it will be different. We have to have faith. Many people who didn?t deserve have suffered here."