Gilmar cites parliamentary immunity and rejects complaint from Flávio's deputy against congressmen who mentioned rape accusation

When rejecting the complaint, Gilmar cited parliamentary immunity and pointed out the absence of just cause for opening an investigation.

The political clash has as its backdrop a preliminary investigation, already archived, of alleged rape of a vulnerable person attributed to Alfredo Gaspar.

The case gained national attention after a request to open an investigation was sent to the Federal Police. However, the Attorney General's Office (PGR) declared that this investigation was closed, highlighting that the elements presented were fragile.

Minister Gilmar Mendes himself ordered the preliminary investigation to be shelved due to lack of evidence.

The criminal complaint analyzed by Gilmar Mendes this Friday originated from discussions about the alleged crime within Congress.

In March 2026, during a meeting of the INSS CPMI, of which Alfredo Gaspar was rapporteur, the atmosphere heated up when he presented the final report.

Interrupted by Lindbergh Farias, who was against the report, Gaspar was accused by the PT member of being a "rapist". Afterwards, in the halls of Congress, Lindbergh and Soraya Thronicke held a press conference mentioning the PF investigation.

When analyzing the complaint for insult and slander, Gilmar Mendes said that the case was marked by reciprocal hostility and political antagonism. The minister highlighted that Alfredo Gaspar himself also hurled serious insults at Lindbergh during the altercation, calling him a "thug", "drug user" and "thief".

For the minister, although the demonstrations contained heavy terms that were inappropriate for parliamentary decorum, the speeches were part of a context of political debate directly linked to legislative activity and the work of the CPMI.

The decision reinforces that the press conference in the halls of Congress constituted a logical extension of the discussion held at CPMI and says that there was no evidence of deliberate fraud on the part of congressmen when sharing information about the alleged crime.

"In this scenario, it is not up to the STF to establish a kind of abstract gradation of the severity or reprehensibility of the offenses directed by parliamentarians towards each other. Nor is it up to the Court to act as an ordinary instance of discipline for political debate, replacing the institutional mechanisms for controlling parliamentary decorum", concluded the minister.