Questões de Concursos
Selecione os filtros para encontrar suas questões de concursos e clique no botão abaixo para filtrar e resolver.
Selecione os filtros para encontrar suas questões de concursos e clique no botão abaixo para filtrar e resolver.
Nada por aqui
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)
The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment stated that
Leia o texto para responder às questões de números 61 a 64.
Violence Prevention Among Young People in Brazil
Crime and violence have increased dramatically in Brazil in recent decades, particularly in large urban areas, leading to more intense public debate on causes and solutions. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Having security means living without fearing the risk of violation of ones life, liberty, physical integrity or property. Security means not only to be free from actual risks, but also to be able to enjoy the feeling of security. In this respect, human rights are systematically undermined by violence and insecurity. UNESCO expects to play a primary role in supporting actions of social inclusion to help in the prevention of violence, especially among young people. The attributes and resources to be found in the heart of the Organizations different areas will be grouped around this objective. Violence is seen as a violation of fundamental human rights, as a threat to the respect for the principles of liberty and equality. An approach focused on the access to quality education, to decent jobs, to cultural, sports and leisure activities, to digital inclusion and the protection and promotion of human rights and of the environment will be implemented as a response to the challenge of preventing violence among youths. Such approach should also help in creating real opportunities for young people to improve their life conditions and develop their citizenship.
(www.unesco.org. Adaptado)
The text presents the idea that the rise in crime and violence menaces
“Aqui, portanto, está a complexidade, o fascínio e a tragédia de toda vida política. A política é composta de dois elementos – utopia e realidade – pertencentes a dois planos diferentes que jamais se encontram. Não há barreira maior ao pensamento político claro do que o fracasso em distinguir entre ideais, que são utopia, e instituições, que são realidade. O comunista, que lançava o comunismo contra a democracia, pensava normalmente no comunismo como um ideal puro de igualdade e fraternidade, e na democracia como uma instituição que existia na Grã-Bretanha, França ou Estados Unidos, e que apresentava os interesses escusos, as desigualdades e a opressão inerentes a todas as instituições políticas. O democrata, que fazia a mesma comparação, estava de fato comparando um padrão ideal de democracia existente no céu, com o comunismo, como uma instituição existente na Rússia Soviética, com suas divisões de classes, suas caças aos hereges e seus campos de concentração. A comparação, feita, em ambos os casos, entre um ideal e uma instituição, é irrelevante e não faz sentido. O ideal, uma vez incorporado numa instituição, deixa de ser um ideal e torna-se a expressão de um interesse egoístico, que deve ser destruído em nome de um novo ideal. Esta constante interação de forças irreconciliáveis é a substância da política. Toda situação política contém elementos mutuamente incompatíveis de utopia e realidade, de moral e poder.”
(E. H. Carr, Vinte Anos de Crise: 1919-1939. Uma Introdução ao Estudo das Relações Internacionais. Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2001)
Nesse texto, o historiador, jornalista e teórico das relações internacionais britânico E. H. Carr reflete sobre a complexidade da política. Segundo o texto,
Leia o texto a seguir e responda às questões de números 61 a 70.
Desigualdad social en América Latina: el reto de la doble incorporación, social y de mercado
En economías de mercado, cualquier esfuerzo por superar la desigualdad de manera sostenible requiere mejorar la participación de las personas en el mercado laboral. Ello supone que exista un número suficiente de trabajos formales, tanto públicos como privados, con protección social y una adecuada remuneración. A esta forma ideal de participación en el mercado laboral la llamamos incorporación de mercado. La incorporación de mercado es, sin embargo, condición insuficiente para reducir la desigualdad. Primero, la expansión rápida de trabajo formal puede ocurrir junto a un crecimiento aún más rápido de las ganancias de las empresas y de los salarios de quienes tienen mayores cualificaciones, con lo cual la desigualdad aumenta. Segundo, la dependencia exclusiva del sueldo para hacer frente a todos los problemas expone a las personas a riesgos impredecibles (como los accidentes y las enfermedades) y a riesgos difíciles de afrontar de manera individual (como el envejecimiento y la discapacidad). Ello conduce a quiebres de ingreso y al deterioro de la calidad de vida de amplios sectores de la población, tanto pobres como no. Las mujeres, particularmente las de menores ingresos, son quienes se ven particularmente afectadas por la ausencia de adecuados servicios sociales. El trabajo no remunerado femenino compensa la falta de estos servicios, inhibiendo la participación de las mujeres 67 mundo del trabajo formal o forzando interrupciones recurrentes, lo cual a su vez acentúa las desigualdades socioeconómicas y de género. Esta falta de servicios incrementa también las brechas de género entre trabajadoras altamente calificadas pero subutilizadas. ¿Cuánto han avanzado durante la última década los países en materia de doble incorporación? ¿Se han promovido los derechos laborales y la negociación colectiva? Y en términos de incorporación social, ¿ha aumentado la inversión por habitante? Nuestro análisis del período 2000-2010 en cinco países sudamericanos muestra claramente mejoras en la incorporación social y de mercado. En los cinco países el empleo formal aumentó y la cobertura de los programas sociales se expandió. Más aún, estos países fueron capaces de proteger el trabajo formal y la inversión social de una de las crisis más graves del último siglo, ocurrida entre el 2008 y el 2012. De los cinco países, Brasil y Uruguay mostraron los mayores cambios en términos de incorporación social y de mercado, simultáneamente. Los restantes tres países, Bolivia, Chile y Perú, en cambio, avanzaron más en materia de incorporación social que de mercado.
(Extraído de http://www.vocesenelfenix.com, mayo de 2013. Adaptado)
De acordo com o texto, estabelecem uma relação de sinonímia os termos
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)
No trecho final do último parágrafo – Otherwise, the detainee may also not see a judge for several months. –, o termo otherwise equivale, em português, a
Considerando-se o contexto em que está inserido o verso - Nem por isso trocara o abrigo terno -, a forma verbal destacada poderia ser substituída, sem prejuízo de sentido e em conformidade com a norma-padrão da língua portuguesa, por
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)
No trecho do sexto parágrafo – …the detainee must be brought to a competent judicial authority within six hours. –, o termo must pode ser substituído, sem alteração de sentido, por
O aperto de mãos de Hitler e Chamberlain: em 22 de setembro de 1938, Adolf Hitler encontrou o Primeiro Ministro britânico Neville Chamberlain na Alemanha. Oito dias depois, de volta à Inglaterra, Chamberlain sugeriu paz com o ditador alemão. O objetivo do encontro entre os dois era debater a tomada da região dos Sudetos, na Tchecoslováquia, pela Alemanha Nazista. Chamberlain acreditava que Hitler estava preocupado apenas com os Sudetos, e achava que a guerra poderia ser evitada.
(Real Clear Politics, 8 Handshakes That Changed History. 22.05.2012. Adaptado)
O episódio descrito é característico da chamada
Certa vez, um velho Tupinambá me perguntou: “Por que vocês, mairs [franceses] e perós [portugueses], vêm de tão longe para buscar lenha? Por acaso não existem árvores na sua terra?” Respondi que sim, que tínhamos muitas, mas não daquela qualidade, e que não as queimávamos, como ele supunha, mas dela extraíamos tinta para tingir. “E precisam de tanta assim?”, retrucou o velho Tupinambá. “Sim”, respondi, “pois no nosso país existem negociantes que possuem mais panos, facas, tesouras, espelhos e outras mercadorias do que se possa imaginar, e um só deles compra todo o pau-brasil que possamos carregar.” “Ah!”, tornou a retrucar o selvagem. “Você me conta maravilhas. Mas me diga: esse homem tão rico de quem você me fala, não morre?” “Sim”, disse eu, “morre como os outros”. Aqueles selva- gens são grandes debatedores e gostam de ir ao fim em qualquer assunto. Por isso, o velho indígena me inquiriu outra vez: “E quando morrem os ricos, para quem fica o que deixam?” “Para seus filhos, se os têm”, respondi. “Na falta destes, para os irmãos e parentes próximos.” “Bem vejo agora que vocês, mairs, são mesmo uns grandes tolos. Sofrem tanto para cruzar o mar, suportando todas as privações e incômodos dos quais sempre falam quando aqui chegam, e trabalham dessa maneira apenas para amontoar riquezas para seus filhos ou para aqueles que vão sucedê-los? A terra que os alimenta não será por acaso suficiente para alimentar a eles? Nós também temos filhos a quem ama- mos. Mas estamos certos de que, depois da nossa morte, a terra que nos nutriu nutrirá também a eles. Por isso, descansamos sem maiores preocupações.”
(BUENO, Eduardo. Pau Brasil. São Paulo: Axis Mundi, 2002)
O diálogo entre o pastor calvinista Jean de Léry (1534-1611) e o velho Tupinambá, travado em algum momento da estada de Léry no Rio de Janeiro, entre março de 1557 e janeiro de 1558, é revelador