Results
| Autor | Gregory Michener - Luiz Fernando Marrey Moncau - Rafael Velasco. |
| Ocupação do Autor | .Associate Professor, Ebape/Fgv Director, Program for Public Transparency - Manager Center for Technology and Society (Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade), Fgv Direito Rio - Program Coordinator Program for Public Transparency, Fgv |
| Páginas | 73-102 |
1. Methodology
The methodology used in the Judicial Branch Audit replicated the methodolo-
gy used in the General Audit, explained in detail previously in Chapter 1.
We adjusted the methodology in superficial ways to the peculiarities of the ju-
diciary, as well as to meet the scope and objectives of the investigation. The details
of these adjustments are described below.
1.1. Audit coverage
This audit assessed 40 Brazilian courts, including Superior Courts, Regional La-
bor Courts, Federal Courts, and Courts of Justice. Table 12 below presents distribution.
Table 12 – Distribution of audited courts
Courts Quantity
Superior Courts Supreme Court
(STF), STJ and TST 3
Regional Labor Courts TRTs 5*
Regional Federal Courts TRFs 5**
State Courts (Tribunais de Justiça) TJ s 27***
Total 40
(*)TRT of the 1st Region, TRT of the 2nd Region, TRT of the 3rd Region, TRT of the 10th Region and
the TRT of the 15th Region.
(**)TRFs of the 1st and 5th Regions.
(***)TJs of all the Brazilian states and the Federal District
CHAPTER 5 | RESULTS
74 THE BRAZILIAN STATE AND TRANSPARENCY
EVALUATING COMPLIANCE WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Seven FOI requests were submitted to each court, making a total of 280.
However, one of the requests did not apply to the superior courts, reducing the total
number of requests by three. Additionally, 13 requests were canceled for technical
reasons. Ultimately, 264 FOI requests were included in the audit.
The following is a list of the 16 requests not included in the audit:
Three requests about the promotion of judges (Request Category 4) not
were submitted because they did not apply to the Superior Courts (Tribunais
Superiores Supreme Court (STF), STJ, and TST);
Two requests with incorrect questions were excluded from the analysis;
Eleven requests were not submitted due to problems with the websites for the
following tribunals: TJ-BA (two requests), TJ-AM (one request), TJ-AC (three
requests), TJ-RS (two requests), STJ (one request), TJ-RO (one request), and
Supreme Court (STF) (one request). The exclusion of these requests did not
impact the assessment of these courts.
1.2. Development and submission of requests
Seven request types were developed and submitted to the courts included in
the audit. The topics addressed by the requests are shown in Table 13.
1.3. Topics of requests
We attempted to frame each request in a clear and concise manner in order to
leave little room for interpretation by the entity, thereby reducing the possibilities of
a rejection. Thus, legal terminology was used in the development of the questions
whenever necessary.
The objective of requests 1, 2, and 7, was to obtain information about the com-
pensation of judges. The so-called National Administrative Reform (Reforma Admi-
nistrativa do Estado), implemented by Constitutional Amendment Number 19/98,
established a ceiling for the compensation of public servants. This constitutional
amendment is enforced through a complex web of laws and regulations, which in
addition to the constitutional norms, includes the Internal Laws of the National Ju-
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO