A.
Petitioners
6. The petitioners allege that in addition to the physical violence to which rural workers in
Brazil are subject – specifically in the state of Paraná – members of those organizations that
work for the fair distribution of land are also the victims of political persecution. An example of
this persecution described in their complaint concerns the illegal tapping, in the year 1999, of
the telephone lines of the COANA organizations. There organizations constitute a cooperative
to market the output of the settlements of rural workers who belong to the Movement of Rural
Landless Workers (MST) and ADECON, an association of rural workers that is also linked to the
MST.
7. The petition states that on April 28, 1999, the Commander-in-Chief of the military police in
the state of Paraná requested the State minister for public security to tap and monitor two
telephone lines (one belonging to COANA and the other to ADECON) as part of an investigation
into crimes supposedly committed by persons affiliated to the MST. The petitioners allege that
this request was in violation of Brazilian Law No 9.296 of 1999, which stipulates that the only
authority empowered to request such interceptions is the civilian police director in charge of
criminal investigations, and not the military police.
8. The petitioners allege that, notwithstanding the above-mentioned irregularities, the minister
for public security asked the judge of the town of Loanda in the state of Paraná to tap the
telephone lines. On May 5, 1999, the judge in Loanda, while providing no grounds for her
decision, ordered the tapping to begin. The petitioners allege that the tappings and recordings
began on May 14, 1999, and during the time the judicial order was in force (it was extended
until May 25, 1999) 65 recordings were made. The petitioners allege that the authorities made
a further 58 recordings after the time covered by the judicial order. Therefore, on July 1, 1999,
military police major Wilmer Copetti Neves surrendered 123 recordings to the Loanda judge,
highlighting sections relating to personal or intimate conversations that were irrelevant to a
criminal investigation.
9. The petitioners alleged that isolated fragments of these recorded conversations were
broadcast by the authorities on Brazil’s largest television channel on June 8, 1999, in order to
undermine the activities of the MST. According to the petitioners, the Paraná State minister for
public security, Cándido Manuel Martins de Oliveira, himself confirmed to the local press that
he was responsible for having released the recorded conversations.
10. When they learned about the telephone tapping, rural workers Arley José Escher, Celso
Anghinoni, and Avanilson Alves Araujo in their own right and in representation of the
organizations COANA and ADECON brought an action before the Paraná State Court of Justice
called Mandado de Segurança Criminal seeking an end to the violation of their right to
intimacy. 2 According to the petitioners, on December 17, 1999, the Paraná State Attorney
General’s office deemed the tapping and monitoring of the telephonic communications to be an
illegal act, but they could not agree on the merits in view of the fact that the tapping had by
then ceased and the petition was therefore unwarranted.
11. The complainants brought an action for embargo de declaração and argued that the
decision had refrained from ordering the destruction of the recordings, even though this had
been requested. In judgment on June 19, 2000, the Court summarily rejected this petition.
12. Furthermore, the petitioners stated that on August 19, 1999, representatives from the
organizations ADECON and COANA filed a criminal complaint with the Paraná State General
Prosecutor’s office requesting an investigation of the alleged criminal behavior of the public
officers involved. In the opinion of the petitioners, both the mandado de segurança as well as
the criminal complaint were the appropriate remedies available to them and both were tried.
13. The petitioners claimed they had exhausted remedies available under domestic law with
the mandado de segurança. And with regard to the criminal action, they stated that one year
2 Article V of the Brazilian constitution defines the remedy of mandado de segurança in the following terms:
LXIX A writ of mandamus shall be issued to protect a clear and perfect right, not covered by habeas corpus or
habeas data, whenever the party responsible for the illegal actions or abuse of power is a public official or an
agent of a corporate legal entity exercising duties of the Government.
2