The reasonable length of proceedings and time as an invisible judge: Reflections from original criminal action 623/DF

Introduction

Reflection on temporality in the context of criminal procedure takes on singular importance, especially when considering the intersection between the expectation of justice and the sense of impunity that permeates today’s society. Time, in its inexorable passage, becomes one of the most influential protagonists in the dynamics governing criminal accountability. It has the silent power to strengthen the symbolic force of the legislation in force, just as it can dilute the bonds connecting society to the collective memory of the offenses committed.

The recent decision in original criminal action 623/DF, which dragged on for a long 17 years until reaching its outcome in the STJ, invites us to a deep reflection on the issue — often neglected — of the reasonable duration of proceedings. In this context, the Judiciary, in recognizing the commission of crimes such as active corruption, passive corruption, and diversion of notary-office revenue, involving authorities, imposed convictions which, although forceful, came accompanied by the loss of public offices.

However, the slowness of this process prompts an even deeper reflection, one that goes beyond the immediate consequences of the court decision: what is the real meaning of handing down a conviction when the memory of the unlawful act has already faded or has been transformed into social perception?

In the end, this issue not only challenges legal practitioners, but also invites society to ponder the true effectiveness of a system that, by dragging on over time, may end up distorting the very concept of justice.

Time as a criterion of legitimacy

The question of the right to a reasonable duration of proceedings, in the setting of the Brazilian judicial system, calls for careful analysis from the standpoint of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. These principles are also backed by various international human rights treaties, which highlight the importance of this indispensable right.

It is essential to recognize that, although the constitutional norm clearly outlines this right, its effectiveness is often compromised by significant obstacles. The chronic slowness that permeates the structure of the Judiciary stands out as one of the greatest challenges, characterized by a complex tangle of appeal routines that resemble an endless cycle. To aggravate the situation, there is an ingrained culture that accepts slowness, especially in cases reaching the higher courts.

Moreover, special forum by reason of office, which could in theory act as an institutional safeguard, often becomes an obstacle to procedural speed. This hinders the swift investigation of offenses that, by their nature, affect public trust in institutions. In this context, it is essential to reflect on the impact of this dynamic on the right to justice. Slowness does not affect only those directly involved in the proceedings; it also delegitimizes the judicial system as a whole, undermining the effectiveness of the Rule of Law.

Therefore, it becomes urgent to seek reforms that promote efficiency and speed in the processing of cases. In doing so, we will ensure respect for the fundamental right to the reasonable duration of proceedings, as called for in our Constitution and in international norms. Consequently, a critical re-examination of current judicial practices becomes essential, with a view to building a justice system that not only works, but is also perceived by citizens as swift and effective.

Social and psychological impacts of Justice that comes late

From the standpoint of critical theory and the philosophy of law, it is fundamental to recognize that the temporality of judicial proceedings is not neutral. It directly affects the way individuals and society, in their totality, understand the complexity of crime.

For the community, the duration of judicial proceedings generates significant symbolic wear. The social energy that sustains legitimate indignation disperses, draining away in the inertia of slowness. When a sentence is handed down late, the effectiveness of the punitive act in restoring confidence in the legal order becomes questionable.

As regards the defendant, the slowness of the proceeding dilutes the meaning of the penalty. A sanction applied after an excessive interval in relation to the events in question loses its capacity to promote re-education and to restore the balance between the offense and its consequences. Moreover, the accused often finds himself in a state of uncertainty that may last for years, thus constituting a violation of his dignity.

For the judicial system, slowness creates an environment of disbelief. This disbelief manifests itself as a silent pathogen, capable of contaminating all the other procedural rituals, thereby eroding the legitimacy of decisions both in the present and in the future.

Corruption and criminal response: when time favors the offender

With regard to crimes committed against the Public Administration, it is fundamental to stress the importance of the temporal aspect. The misuse of public resources and the abuse of positions of trust demand, by their very essence, a response that is, in fact, exemplary. Here, the question is not limited to punishing the offender but, much more than that, seeks to convey to society the message that the social pact has minimum guarantees that allow its self-correction.

Thus, a conviction that occurs 17 years after the filing of the complaint, as exemplified in the case of APn 623/DF, raises questions about the effectiveness of the structure of criminal repression. The mere existence of a judgment is not enough; it is crucial that it occur within an adequate time, in order to preserve its relevance and effectiveness. Thus, it becomes an urgent challenge for the legal system to ensure that the State’s response not only exists, but also manifests in a way that still resonates in the social and legal context in which it is embedded.

Inertia over time cannot be regarded merely as a failure; it must be seen as an element that undermines the credibility of institutions and the population's trust in the State's responses to the criminality that threatens its fundamental interests. It is therefore essential that this topic receive the necessary attention, so that we can review and improve the mechanisms of justice, ensuring that social and legal values are respected.

Reasonable duration of proceedings: functional content

The reasonable duration of proceedings, far from being seen as a simple fixed time frame, manifests itself, in reality, as a need for harmony between the complexity of the dispute and the mobilization of the institutional resources available for its resolution. This principle acts as a true pillar of balance: by protecting the defendant from possible abuses within the proceedings, it at the same time guarantees the victim and society a response that is effective, giving the Judiciary the legitimacy necessary to decide while the matter still echoes in the collective memory.

Therefore, the violation of this principle goes beyond a mere technical error; it is, rather, an offense against fundamental human rights, since it disrespects the dignity of the people involved and compromises the essence of the Rule of Law itself. In light of this, it is crucial to recognize the importance of reasonable duration not only as a legal concept but as an essential component for the promotion of justice and for the protection of the rights of all citizens.

Summary: time as a criterion of justice

Reflection on procedural speed in the current judicial system invites us to reassess not only the structure but also the procedures that guide the courts’ work. In an era in which the speed of information is a constant trait of our daily lives, a Judiciary that drags on in time runs the risk of becoming a mere spectator in social history, losing the fundamental relevance attributed to it. The need for an agile judicial response becomes an ethical imperative for those who wish to foster a culture of integrity and justice.

In this sense, the question of timeliness must be seen as essential, not as a mere detail. It must be functionally integrated into the decision-making process. It is undeniable that slowness can turn the Judiciary into an invisible judge, whose decisions often prove unjust and which, consequently, fails in its mission to guarantee rights.

Taking emblematic cases as an example, such as that of APn 623/DF, it is crucial that we not restrict ourselves to observing only the letter of the law, but that we also turn our gaze to judicial practices, entrenched habits, and the priorities that permeate the administration of Justice. A Justice that cannot respond quickly to society's needs not only compromises its own essence but also shakes the trust of those who seek support in the institutions.

Thus, critical reflection on the speed of proceedings must be seen as an urgent challenge, one that demands a thorough review of the paradigms that, until now, have guided the conduct of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

The urgency in delivering justice, especially in the context of procedural law, demands careful reflection on the importance of the principle of reasonable duration of proceedings, enshrined in our Constitution. In this sense, it is essential to recognize that the need for swift decisions is not limited to an administrative aspect; it is, above all, a matter of protecting the dignity of those who seek justice and reinforcing the trust that society places in institutions. In this way, slowness in the processing of cases cannot be seen merely as a simple bureaucratic obstacle, but as an offense to the Rule of Law. Procedural delay is not translated only into the length of time limits but, above all, into the erosion of the credibility of the judicial system.

Furthermore, the use of time as a defensive strategy or as a justification for organizational inefficiency has consequences that go beyond financial costs; it directly impacts the legitimacy of judicial decisions. The notion that the duration of a proceeding is a favor granted by the State proves to be a mistake, since, in reality, it is a fundamental right of the citizen, inherent in due process. Therefore, ensuring speed in the delivery of adjudication is not merely a wish, but a vital necessity for maintaining social order and preserving trust in the institutions that make up the justice system.

In this context, it is urgent to adopt effective measures that guarantee not only efficiency but also speed in resolving conflicts, promoting the justice we all desire in a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Transforming this reality is essential if we are to move toward a fairer and more effective judicial system, one that truly meets society's expectations.

By Fábio Medina Osório, for Migalhas.