Questões de Concursos Inglês

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)

 Generation Y
By Sally Kane, About.com Guide

Born in the mid-1980"s and later, Generation Y legal professionals are in their 20s and are just entering the workforce. With numbers estimated as high as 70 million, Generation Y (also -1- as the Millennials) is the fastest growing segment of today"s workforce. As law firms compete for available talent, employers cannot ignore the needs, desires and attitudes of this vast generation. Below are a few common traits that define Generation Y.

Tech-Savvy: Generation Y grew up with technology and rely on it to perform their jobs better. Armed with BlackBerrys, laptops, cellphones and other gadgets, Generation Y is plugged-in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This generation prefers to communicate through e-mail and text messaging rather than face-to-face contact and -2- webinars and online technology to traditional lecture-based presentations.

Family-Centric: The fast-track has lost much of its appeal for Generation Y who is willing to trade high pay for fewer billable hours, flexible schedules and a better work/life balance. While older generations may view this attitude as narcissistic or lacking commitment, discipline and drive, Generation Y legal professionals have a different vision of workplace expectations and prioritize family over work.

Achievement-Oriented: Nurtured and pampered -3- parents who did not want to make the mistakes of the previous generation, Generation Y is confident, ambitious and achievement-oriented. They have high expectations of their employers, seek out new challenges and are not afraid to question authority. Generation Y wants meaningful work and a solid learning curve

Team-Oriented: As children, Generation Y participated in team sports, play groups and other group activities. They value teamwork and seek the input and affirmation of others. Part of a no-person-left-behind generation, Generation Y is loyal, committed and wants to be included and involved.

Attention-Craving: Generation Y craves attention in the forms of feedback and guidance. They appreciate being kept in the loop and seek frequent praise and reassurance. Generation Y may benefit greatly from mentors who can help guide and develop their young careers.

Font: http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/Ge...

TEXT 3
Sustainable mining – oxymoron or a way of the future?

Mining is an activity that has persisted since the start of humans using tools. However, one might argue that digging a big hole in the ground and selling the finite resources that come out of that hole is not sustainable, especially when the digging involves the use of other finite resources (i.e. fuels) and produces a lot of greenhouse gases.

The counter argument could go along the lines that minerals are not being lost or destroyed through mining and mineral processing – the elements are being shifted around, and converted into new forms. Metals can even be extracted from waste, seawater or even sewage, and recycled. But a more simple argument is possible: a mine can be sustainable if it is economically, socially and environmentally beneficial in the short and long term. To be sustainable, the positive benefits of mining should outweigh any negative impacts. […]

Social positives are often associated with mines in regional areas, such as providing better amenities in a nearby town, or providing employment (an economic and social positive). Social negatives can also occur, such as dust, noise, traffic and visual amenity. These are commonly debated and, whilst sometimes controversial, can be managed with sufficient corporate commitment, stakeholder engagement, and enough time to work through the issues. Time is the key parameter - it may take several years for a respectful process of community input, but as long as it is possible for social negatives to be outweighed by social positives, then the project will be socially sustainable.

It is most likely that a mine development will have some environmental negatives, such as direct impacts on flora and fauna through clearing of vegetation and habitat within the mine footprint. Some mines will have impacts which extend beyond the mine site, such as disruption to groundwater, production of silt and disposal of waste. Certainly these impacts will need to be managed throughout the mine life, along with robust rehabilitation and closure planning. […]

The real turning point will come when mining companies go beyond environmental compliance to create "heritage projects" that can enhance the environmental or social benefits in a substantial way – by more than the environmental offsets needed just to make up for the negatives created by the mine. In order to foster these innovative mining heritage projects we need to promote "sustainability assessments" - not just "environmental assessments". This will lead to a more mature appreciation of the whole system whereby the economic and social factors, as well as environmental factors, are considered in a holistic manner.

(adapted from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/western-australia-division/sustainable-mining-oxymoron-or-way-future. Retrieved on August 10, 2015)

Mark Zuckerberg’s 650 Million Friends (and counting)

    Back in June 2009, the globe’s potpourri of social-networking sites was extremely diverse: Google’s Orkut dominated India and Brazil; Central and South America preferred Hi5; Maktoob was king in the Arab world. The Vietnamese liked Zing, the Czechs loved Lidé, South Koreans surfed Cyworld. Two years after that, and Facebook has stolen users away from its rivals very fast. It’s completely knocked Hi5 off the map in former strongholds such as Peru, Mexico, and Thailand. After a tense back-and-forth with Orkut in India, Facebook has emerged victorious. And it’s becoming more popular in Armenia, Georgia, and the Netherlands, where local providers are making a desperate last stand.
   There are some glaring exceptions to Facebook’s colonization kick. Russians continue to use Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki, with Facebook a distant fourth in the rankings. China remains highly committed to domestic sites such as Qzone and Renren. But for the rest of us, we’re living in Zuckerberg’s world.

(endereço eletrônico omitido propositadamente)

The US Department of Energy is giving $120m (£75m) to set up a new research centre charged with developing new methods of rare earth production.

Rare earths are 17 chemically similar elements crucial to making many hi-tech products, such as phones and PCs. The Critical Materials Institute will be located in Ames, Iowa.

The US wants to reduce its dependency on China, which produces more than 95% of the world’s rare earth elements, and address local shortages. According to the US Geological Survey, there may be deposits of rare earths in 14 US states. Besides being used for hi-tech gadgets, the elements are also crucial for manufacturing low-carbon resources such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars, said David Danielson, the US assistant secretary for renewable energy.

Rare earth elements are also used for military applications, such as advanced optics technologies, radar and radiation detection equipment, and advanced communications systems, according to a 2011 research report by the US Government Accountability Office. From the 1960s until the 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine in California made the US the world leader in rare earth production, but it was later closed, largely due to competition with the elements imported from China.

At the moment, the regulations surrounding rare earths mining in the US are very strict, an expert on the materials from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden told the BBC. “The Mountain Pass mine was [also] closed down for environmental reasons,” said Prof Ekberg.