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)

Mr. Law´s invention

Less than a year ago the judges on the reality programme Dragon´s Den rejected his invention. Now inventor Rob Law is having the last laugh after a product considered "worthless" on the BBC television programme for young entrepreneurs has proved a huge commercial hit. Mr. Law, 29, from Bath, spent 11 years – and 17,000 pounds of his own money – refining his design for a wheelie suitcase which doubles up as a child´s ride-on toy. The plastic Trunki case is designed to allow youngsters aged three to six to take their own bag on holiday – and sit on it when they are tired. But when Mr. Law appeared on Dragons´ Den last September, he was given a hard time by the famously unfriendly panel of investors. Businessman Theo Paphitis ridiculed the product after managing to pull off one of the straps. His colleague Deborah Meadon, head of a holiday firm, declared bluntly that there was no market for the case. And the notoriously brusque tele-communications tycoon Peter Jones declared: "I meet people like you all the time – you think you have something. I tell you, you don´t". The panel declined Mr. Law´s offer to give up 10 percent of his new company in return for a 100,000 pounds investment – an offer which valued the firm at 1 million. However, it now appears that the experts were wrong. After a succession of positive press reviews, Mr. Law has sold 85,000 of his trunki suitcases. It is marketed in 22 countries via a network of distributors. Retailing at 25 pounds, it has proved a hit at several high street stores. Mr Law said: "When I went on to the programme I was full of confidence that I was going to get the investment I needed. But they were rude and obnoxious and just focused on the strap, which was actually something that was easily fixed. I was terrified that by appearing on the programme I may have ruined my company before it even started. But afterwards we had loads of hits on the website from people who said they thought it was a brilliant idea. Now I am absolutely delighted to have proved the Dragons wrong. It just goes to show you should never give up. Mr. Law also revealed that during filming he managed to sell two of the suitcases to Australian panellist Richard Farleigh, who wanted to invest 100,000 pounds in return for half of the company. But Mr. Law rejected the deal. He declined to say exactly how much the company – which is 100% owned by him - is now worth, but said it was more than a million.

(Adapted from New English File Upper, Oxford, 1996)

     The ability of a helicopter to hover and land almost anywhere makes it an enormously useful machine. But helicopters have their limitations, particularly when it comes to flying fast. In a recent series of test flights, a new type of chopper has begun smashing speed records.
     The x2 is an experimental helicopter being developed by Sikorsky, an American company, which hopes it will be zipping along at more than 460kph. The company, however, is interested in more than just breaking speed records. It plans to use the technology developed for the x2 in commercial helicopters.
     Sikorsky reckons that future helicopters built using the x2 technology would be extremely versatile machines. They would dash to and from a medical emergency a lot faster. They would also be very agile in flight, which would increase their capabilities in combat.

(Adapted from The Economist September 11, 2010, page 98)