The purpose of the trial hearing is to produce the evidence, carried for the record by the criminal police bodies (those who investigate the evidence during the investigation into the supervision of the Public Prosecutor), and to discover the truth of the facts, in order to ascertain whether the suspect / accused incurs criminal liability.
Proving the evidence, the suspect / accused will then be convicted of the crime in a sentence that may be effective, that is, in a sentence that deprives freedom of liberty served in a prison, or in a sentence that may be suspended if the sentence is apply to him for up to five years, may the court - taking into account his personality, the conditions of his life, his conduct before and after the crime and the circumstances in which he committed it - determine (or not) the execution or execution of the sentence in prison.
Now, the suspended sentence is the strong bet of the hacker Rui Pinto's strategy for his trial, sending messages more out of the process than to the records. He wants to be recognized as a “whistleblower”, a whistleblower in good faith, who has appropriated the knowledge of the facts that he denounces lawfully, always taking into account the public interest in reporting criminal facts.
One looks in the mirror and sees, in his face, a Lusitanian version of Edward Snowden, a systems analyst and former employee of the CIA and NSA (US security and spy agencies), who showed the world government practices by revealing in detail some of the surveillance programs that that country uses to monitor its citizens and those of several countries in Europe and Latin America, using servers from companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook. Edward Snowden took up residence, as far as is known, in Russia.
Edward Snowden is an “ethical hacker”, he did not try to enrich himself with the complaints he made, nor does he have in the past the appropriation of money deposited in international banking institutions. The same can no longer be said of our countryman, who did not hesitate to give two orders to transfer his personal account to Caledonian Bank, both through illegitimate access to the computer system of that Cayman Islands Bank, the first amounting to 34.627 euros and the second, in the short space of a month, worth 229.748 euros. Even less, it tried to negotiate confidentiality about illicit access to documentation belonging to a well-known football investment fund in exchange for a millionaire counterpart.
A “hacker” accesses mailboxes, communication systems, does computer sabotage and, therefore, the evidence he obtains is always through illicit means, means that constitute the practice of crime. But despite all this, even though knowing that access to such systems is illegal, what is the reason that moved the Central Department of Investigation and Penal Action of Lisbon (DCIAP) to want to recruit a “hacker” to do criminal investigation?
The elements that a “hacker” unduly obtains are null evidence and do not constitute judicial evidence, which is why they cannot be used in court. However, the collection of these documentary elements, allows the Public Prosecutor's Office and the criminal police bodies to launch an investigation in order to obtain the same means of evidence, only in a legal way, and, thus, to be able to bring an indictment against the violators. that is sustainable in court.
Put more simply, the “hacker” opens the investigation window and launches the crosswalk so that the investigators can walk and, eventually, reach credible evidence. By force and with due pressure, she is already wearing the uniform of an expert in criminalistics and, not least, with the support of the most famous criminal investigating judge in our judicial system.
He is certainly already re-socialized and will never commit any criminal act. We have, thanks to a number of factors, a new man! Let us hope that the same method in which politicians, police officers and commentators come together is also used to re-socialize other offenders and that we have, in drug trafficking, terrorism and banditry, an elite group of experts in criminalistics who support criminal investigation.
This way of doing justice by pressure, this way of imposing penalties, without yet having the institute of the winning sentence, or the much-needed sentence agreements, and we want to mix everything as if Law 93/99, of 14 July , known as the Witness Protection Act, were the pan for all cooks, is an aberrant and violator of the rule of law in the formal use of legal instruments. And it is also an aberrant and violator of the primacy of justice and protection for all members of society against collateral powers. Once again, our justice is on the razor's edge!