Questões Militares
Comentadas sobre tradução | translation em inglês
Foram encontradas 31 questões
Leia o texto para responder à questão.
What is organized crime?
Organized crime was characterised by the United Nations, in 1994, as: “group organization to commit crime; hierarchical links or personal relationships which permit leaders to control the group: violence, intimidation and corruption used to earn profits or control territories or markets; laundering of illicit proceeds both in furtherance of criminal activity and to infiltrate the legitimate economy; the potential for expansion into any new activities and beyond national borders; and cooperation with other organized transnational criminal groups.”
It is increasingly global. Although links between, for example, mafia groups in Italy and the USA have existed for decades, new and rapid means of communication have facilitated the development of international networks. Some build on shared linguistic or cultural ties, such as a network trafficking drugs and human organs, which links criminal gangs in Mozambique, Portugal, Brazil, Pakistan, Dubai and South Africa. Others bring together much less likely groups, such as those trafficking arms, drugs and people between South Africa, Nigeria, Pakistan and Russia, or those linking the Russian mafia with Colombian cocaine cartels or North American criminal gangs with the Japanese Yakuza. Trafficked commodities may pass from group to group along the supply chain; for instance heroin in Italy has traditionally been produced in Afghanistan, transported by Turks, distributed by Albanians, and sold by Italians.
Organized crime exploits profit opportunities wherever they arise. Globalization of financial markets, with free movement of goods and capital, has facilitated smuggling of counterfeit goods (in part a reflection of the creation of global brands), internet fraud, and money-laundering. On the other hand, organized crime also takes advantage of the barriers to free movement of people across national borders and the laws against non-medicinal use of narcotics: accordingly it earns vast profits in smuggling migrants and psychoactive drugs. Briquet and Favarel have identified deregulation and the “rolling back of the state” in some countries as creating lacunae that have been occupied by profiteers. The political changes in Europe in the late 1980s fuelled the growth in criminal networks, often involving former law enforcement officers. Failed states, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sierra Leone, have provided further opportunities as criminal gangs smuggle arms in and commodities out, for example diamonds, gold, and rare earth metals, often generating violence against those involved in the trade and in the surrounding communities. Finally, there are a few states, such as the Democratic Republic of Korea and Burma and Guinea-Bissau (once described as a narco-state) where politicians have been alleged to have played an active role in international crime.
Organized criminal gangs have strong incentives. Compared with legitimate producers, they have lower costs of production due to the ability to disregard quality and safety standards, tax obligations, minimum wages or employee benefits. Once established, they may threaten or use violence to eliminate competitors, and can obtain favourable treatment by regulatory authorities either through bribes or threats.
(www.globalizationandhealth.com. Adaptado)
No trecho do terceiro parágrafo – The political changes in Europe in the late 1980s fuelled the growth in criminal networks, often involving former law enforcement officers. – a palavra fuelled equivale, em português, a
Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training
How can respecting human rights help the police?
Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights:
• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.
• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.
• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.
• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.
• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.
• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.
• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints.
An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism.
What role does training play in protecting human rights?
The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.
Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.
(G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)
Michael Jackson died while preparing to set a world record for the most successful concert run ever, but he unknowingly set another record that led to his death.
Jackson may be the only human ever to go two months without REM - Rapid Eye Movement - sleep, which is vital to keep the brain and body alive. The 60 nights of propofol infusions Dr. Conrad Murray said he gave Jackson to treat his insomnia is something a sleep expert says no one had ever undergone.
“The symptoms that Mr. Jackson was exhibiting were consistent with what someone might expect to see of someone suffering from total sleep deprivation over a chronic period,” Dr. Charles Czeisler, a Harvard Medical School sleep expert, testified Friday at the wrongful-death trial of concert promoter AEG Live, company that hired Dr. Conrad Murray as Jackson's personal physician.
Propofol disrupts the normal sleep cycle and offers no REM sleep, yet it leaves a patient feeling refreshed as if they had experienced genuine sleep, according to Czeisler.
If the singer had not died on June 25, 2009, of an overdose of the surgical anesthetic, the lack of REM sleep may have soon taken his life anyway, according Czeisler's testimony Friday.
The Right to a “Custody Hearing” under International Law
by Maria Laura Canineu
February 3, 2014
A person who is arrested has a right to be brought promptly before a judge. This is a longstanding and fundamental principle of international law, crucial for ensuring that the person’s arrest, treatment, and any ongoing detention are lawful.
Yet, until now, Brazil has not respected this right. Detainees often go months before seeing a judge. For instance, in São Paulo state, which houses 37 percent of Brazil’s total prison population, most detainees are not brought before a judge for at least three months. The risk of ill-treatment is often highest during the initial stages of detention, when police are questioning a suspect. The delay makes detainees more vulnerable to torture and other serious forms of mistreatment by abusive police officers.
In 2012, the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reported that it had received “repeated and consistent accounts of torture and ill-treatment” in São Paulo and other Brazilian states, “committed by, in particular, the military and civil police.” The torture had allegedly occurred in police custody or at the moment of arrest, on the street, inside private homes, or in hidden outdoor areas, and was described as “gratuitous violence, as a form of punishment, to extract confessions, and as a means of extortion.”
In addition to violating the rights of detainees, these abusive practices make it more difficult for the police to establish the kind of public trust that is often crucial for effective crime control. These practices undermine legitimate efforts to promote public security and curb violent crime, and thus have a negative impact on Brazilian society as a whole.
The right to be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay is enshrined in treaties long ago ratified by Brazil, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for interpreting the ICCPR, has determined that the delay between the arrest of an accused and the time before he is brought before a judicial authority “should not exceed a few days,” even during states of emergency.
Other countries in Latin America have incorporated this right into their domestic law. For instance, in Argentina, the federal Criminal Procedure Code requires that in cases of arrest without a judicial order, the detainee must be brought to a competent judicial authority within six hours.
In contrast, Brazil’s criminal procedure code requires that when an adult is arrested in flagrante and held in police custody, only the police files of the case need to be presented to the judge within 24 hours, not the actual detainee. Judges evaluate the legality of the arrest and make the decision about whether to order continued detention or other precautionary measures based solely on the written documents provided by the police.
The code establishes a maximum of 60 days for the first judicial hearing with the detainee, but does not explicitly say when this period begins. In practice, this often means that police in Brazil can keep people detained, with formal judicial authorization, for several months, without giving the detainee a chance to actually see a judge.
According to the code, the only circumstance in which police need to bring a person before the judge immediately applies to cases of crimes not subject to bail in which arresting officer was not able to exhibit the arrest order to the person arrested at the time of arrest. Otherwise, the detainee may also not see a judge for several months.
(www.hrw.org. Editado e adaptado)
The Right to a “Custody Hearing” under International Law
by Maria Laura Canineu
February 3, 2014
A person who is arrested has a right to be brought promptly before a judge. This is a longstanding and fundamental principle of international law, crucial for ensuring that the person’s arrest, treatment, and any ongoing detention are lawful.
Yet, until now, Brazil has not respected this right. Detainees often go months before seeing a judge. For instance, in São Paulo state, which houses 37 percent of Brazil’s total prison population, most detainees are not brought before a judge for at least three months. The risk of ill-treatment is often highest during the initial stages of detention, when police are questioning a suspect. The delay makes detainees more vulnerable to torture and other serious forms of mistreatment by abusive police officers.
In 2012, the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reported that it had received “repeated and consistent accounts of torture and ill-treatment” in São Paulo and other Brazilian states, “committed by, in particular, the military and civil police.” The torture had allegedly occurred in police custody or at the moment of arrest, on the street, inside private homes, or in hidden outdoor areas, and was described as “gratuitous violence, as a form of punishment, to extract confessions, and as a means of extortion.”
In addition to violating the rights of detainees, these abusive practices make it more difficult for the police to establish the kind of public trust that is often crucial for effective crime control. These practices undermine legitimate efforts to promote public security and curb violent crime, and thus have a negative impact on Brazilian society as a whole.
The right to be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay is enshrined in treaties long ago ratified by Brazil, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the American Convention on Human Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for interpreting the ICCPR, has determined that the delay between the arrest of an accused and the time before he is brought before a judicial authority “should not exceed a few days,” even during states of emergency.
Other countries in Latin America have incorporated this right into their domestic law. For instance, in Argentina, the federal Criminal Procedure Code requires that in cases of arrest without a judicial order, the detainee must be brought to a competent judicial authority within six hours.
In contrast, Brazil’s criminal procedure code requires that when an adult is arrested in flagrante and held in police custody, only the police files of the case need to be presented to the judge within 24 hours, not the actual detainee. Judges evaluate the legality of the arrest and make the decision about whether to order continued detention or other precautionary measures based solely on the written documents provided by the police.
The code establishes a maximum of 60 days for the first judicial hearing with the detainee, but does not explicitly say when this period begins. In practice, this often means that police in Brazil can keep people detained, with formal judicial authorization, for several months, without giving the detainee a chance to actually see a judge.
According to the code, the only circumstance in which police need to bring a person before the judge immediately applies to cases of crimes not subject to bail in which arresting officer was not able to exhibit the arrest order to the person arrested at the time of arrest. Otherwise, the detainee may also not see a judge for several months.
(www.hrw.org. Editado e adaptado)
Brazil’s environment ministry has taken steps to save the rainforest by disrupting the illegal logging industry.
About $2.7 million dollars worth of illegally logged wood from indigenous lands were seized by environmental police during a surprise raid in Nova Esperança do Piria.
According to Reuters, some 13 logging companies and sawmills were shut down while tractors, guns, and ammunitions were seized in the remote area […] The government aims to reduce deforestation to a record low in the year to July. It hopes to ensure that deforestation, the cutting down or burning of the rainforest, does not ex- ceed 3,700 square miles. Recent research has shown that the rainforest is a valuable global resource as not only does it harbour a variety of animal and plant species, but it also absorbs a significant amount of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
Conheça nossos planos