Brazil's AGU, the Union'sÂ Solicitor-General, an organ linked to the presidency, joined American David Goldman, this Friday, September 18, against a Supreme Court decision preventing Sean Goldman, 9, the son of David, who was kidnapped by his own mother to Brazil, from leaving Brazil.
In separate filings, Goldman's lawyer and the AGU sent two writs of mandamus (MS 28524, and 28525) questioning the action taken by Justice Marco Aurélio de Mello, who Thursday ruled in a favor of an injunction filed by the Brazilian grandmother of Sean asking that the childÂ be heard in court before going back to the US with his father.
According to the AGU, the refusal do turn the son to his father as decided by a Federal Court in Rio generated a patent breach of international commitments signed by Brazil, including the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
"The failure of carrying out that agreement will lead to the imposition of sanctions, in addition to compromising the image of Brazil before the international community," said theÂ Solicitor-General of the Union, Luis Inácio Adams.
According to him, "in ceasing to be a cooperating country, violating its international obligations, the Federative Republic of Brazil is in danger of no longer having its requests for international legal assistance granted, especially under the international principle of reciprocity."
Thus, as Adams puts it, Brazilian minors who are in the same condition of Sean, but in other countries, may possibly not return to their parents resident in Brazil, due to the Brazilian non-cooperation in this case.
The child's stay in Brazil, the AGU notes, represents a danger and a threat against Brazilian interests, "and against the guarantees of fundamental rights violated by the challenged decision."
Adam remarked that a petition against Brazil has already been submittedÂ to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights due to the delay of the Brazilian Judiciary to deliver final adjudication in the case of unlawful abduction of minors.
The Union's lawyer claims that it's already under way a claim accusing Brazil of breaching the international obligation assumed by the country in the 1980 Hague Convention.
"If this complaint is accepted," he states, "the State may be submitted as a defendant in proceedings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS)."
He finally stresses the potential multiplier effect that any confirmation of the injunction would cause in other situations where the Hague Convention is invoked.
The AGU concludes that a preliminary injunction should be given in favor of David Goldman, as a matter of urgency.
Show Comments (6)