A natureza política da decisão do presidente da República que nega a extradição de estrangeiro: o caso Cesare Battisti

Abstract

In Brazil, the President of the Republic's decision to deny the extradition of a foreign national on the grounds of a political crime is directly tied to the exercise of sovereignty and constitutes a political prerogative. This issue gains significance considering the controversy surrounding the limits of the Federal Supreme Court's (STF) authority in such cases. The central question lies in determining whether the STF can review this decision, deemed political, particularly in cases involving the protection of fundamental rights and international treaties. The importance of this study lies in clarifying the boundaries between the Executive and Judicial branches, reinforcing the understanding of the separation of powers and the democratic oversight of high-level political decisions. The study seeks to demonstrate that the presidential decision to deny extradition for political crimes is not subject to judicial review, highlighting the political responsibility of the Head of State in matters of national sovereignty and international relations. The research draws upon an analysis of constitutional provisions, STF jurisprudence, specialized national and international literature, and case studies of landmark decisions, such as the extradition of Cesare Battisti. It was found that the presidential decision is fundamentally political, and judicial review is limited, except in cases where fundamental rights are violated. The STF's role is restricted to assessing the legality of the decision without interfering with its political merit. The study concludes that the non-reviewability of the presidential decision upholds the separation of powers and ensures the autonomy of the Executive in matters of high-level politics. This approach reaffirms the sovereign nature of the decision and its democratic legitimacy within the framework of political and electoral accountability.