The Nuremberg Trials were a series of court cases conducted by the Allies after World War II to try Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
One of the fundamental principles established during these trials was that obedience to superior orders does not exempt an individual from responsibility for his or her actions, especially when those orders are clearly illegal or unconstitutional.
This principle is known as the “Nuremberg Principle” or “Nuremberg Defense” and establishes that an individual has a moral and legal obligation to disobey orders that are manifestly illegal, even if they come from a higher authority, such as a judge.
The premise behind this principle is that every human being has the ability to discern between right and wrong and must act according to their conscience, regardless of the orders received. This means that if a judge issues an order that is clearly unconstitutional or illegal, it is the individual’s duty to refuse to comply with it.
This principle is fundamental to the rule of law and the protection of human rights. It ensures that no one is above the law and that everyone is responsible for their actions, regardless of their position or authority. It also prevents individuals from committing crimes or human rights violations under the pretext of simply following orders.
However, it is important to emphasize that disobedience to superior orders must be reserved for extreme cases, in which the illegality or unconstitutionality of the order is evident and unequivocal. In less clear situations, it is recommended to seek legal advice or appeal to higher authorities before making a decision.
Absolutely. A judicial decision aimed at establishing censorship must be disregarded, based on the principle established in the Nuremberg Judgment. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democratic society and any attempt to restrict it, even through a judicial decision, must be challenged.
Censorship is a form of control of information and ideas, which goes against the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law.
It limits the free flow of information, impedes public debate and curtails the ability of individuals to form their own opinions. Furthermore, censorship can be used as a tool of oppression, allowing those in power to silence dissenting voices and control the public narrative.
Therefore, if a judge issues an order establishing censorship, it is the duty of all citizens, including other members of the judiciary, the media and civil society, to resist and oppose that order.
This may involve peaceful civil disobedience, legally challenging the decision in higher courts, and mobilizing public opinion to press for the order to be revoked.
It is crucial that society remains vigilant and proactive in defending freedom of expression and fighting any form of censorship, to preserve the integrity of democracy and protect the fundamental rights of all citizens.
It is important to note that although Hitler did not give any direct orders for genocide, lower-ranking Nazi officials were convicted of their crimes at the Nuremberg Trials.
This occurred because, even without explicit orders, these authorities actively participated in the implementation of policies and actions that resulted in genocide and other crimes against humanity.
They (NAZIS) did not question the morality or legality of these actions, choosing to blindly follow Nazi ideology and contribute to the system of mass extermination.
This fact highlights the importance of individual responsibility and the moral obligation to question and resist immoral or illegal orders, regardless of the level of authority of those who issue them.
The crimes committed by the Nazi regime were so atrocious and on such a large scale that it became evident that blind obedience could not be used as a defense.
The Nuremberg Trials set a crucial precedent by holding individuals accountable for their actions, even when those actions were carried out under the auspices of a government or higher authority.
This principle remains relevant today (or less so), reminding us of the importance of maintaining our moral conscience and opposing any form of injustice or violation of human rights, regardless of who is behind these actions.
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) of Brazil also recognized the principle that no one is obliged to comply with an illegal order, even if issued by a judicial authority. In the judgment of Habeas Corpus 73454, the STF established that it is the duty of citizenship to oppose an illegal order, as otherwise the Rule of Law is denied.
This historic decision by the STF (composed in the 90s) reinforces the idea that blind obedience to superior orders cannot be used as a justification for illegal or unconstitutional actions.
Furthermore, the STF (composition from the 90s) also recognized that the concealment of an individual to avoid compliance with an illegal arrest order cannot be the only basis for decreeing a new preventive detention.
This demonstrates that, even when an individual actively opposes an illegal order, this opposition cannot be used as justification for new punitive measures, as long as the new arrest order meets the legal requirements established in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, it is important to consider that the Federal Supreme Court, as the last instance of the Brazilian Judiciary, has, in theory, permission to make unconstitutional decisions, since there is no higher court to appeal its decisions.
This raises the fundamental question: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” or “Who watches the watchers?”
This Latin phrase, attributed to the Roman poet Juvenal, highlights the importance of having control and oversight mechanisms over those who have the power to make decisions that affect society as a whole.
In the case of the STF, although its ministers are appointed through a political process and have the prerogative to interpret the Constitution, it is essential that there is a balance of powers and constant vigilance on the part of civil society, the press and other democratic institutions.
The possibility of unconstitutional decisions by the STF reinforces the need for a robust public debate, active and engaged citizenship, and a free and independent press, capable of questioning and criticizing the actions of the Judiciary when necessary.
Only through this social control and pressure from public opinion is it possible to guarantee that even the highest court in the country acts within constitutional limits and in favor of the interests of society.
In short, the Nuremberg Judgment, the STF decision in Habeas Corpus 73454 and Juvenal’s maxim about who watches the watchers remind us that defending the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights are the responsibilities of all citizens and institutions.
It is up to each of us, individually and collectively, to exercise the role of surveillance and control over the constituted powers, resisting illegal orders, questioning unconstitutional decisions and fighting for the preservation of democracy and justice.
Only in this way can we build a truly free, fair and supportive society, in which everyone’s rights are respected and abuses of power are curbed.
Do you now understand the trouble that Xandão is in?
