The judicial decision, accessed by ACN, emphasizes that, after the investigation phase, it could not be established that the officers acted jointly and in coordination to prevent the former president's arrest. This event occurred just over two months after the amnesty law was approved, but with an arrest warrant still pending from the Supreme Court.

The order highlights the relevance of testimonial and expert evidence. None of the colleagues of the investigated officers who participated in the pre-trial investigation stated having witnessed any act of material assistance or facilitation of the escape by the officers. The audiovisual material presented in the case confirms the presence of the three officers at the scene, where thousands of people gathered. Although a police report indicated that the three accompanied the former president and provided him with protection, no individual conduct of the investigated officers that effectively contributed to his escape could be identified during the instruction.

Furthermore, the magistrate points out that the mere presence of the three investigated individuals at the scene is not sufficient to affirm that there was a prior agreement or preparation between them. Therefore, the judge considers that the perpetration of the crimes that originated the case is not duly justified.

The judicial resolution also reveals that none of the three officers were on duty on the day of the events: one was on sick leave, another on leave, and the third on vacation. The judge also rules out a crime of concealment, as no active action by the investigated individuals aimed at concealment, material aid in the escape, or elimination of evidence, nor an abuse of public functions, has been observed. The Penal Code, according to the order, sanctions actions, not passivity, and in this case, no activity aimed at concealment has been demonstrated. This resolution is not final and can be appealed.