Questões Militares
Para letras
Foram encontradas 19.798 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
1) Depois que se celebrou as pazes entre brancos e negros, vê-los juntos não é mais novidade.
2) Naquele ambiente, quantos haveriam de prestar atenção em quem tomava café?
3) Já faz muitos anos que brancos e negros convivem pacificamente.
4) Se acabaram os preconceitos não se sabe; mas certamente deixarão eles muitas marcas.
Estão de acordo com a norma padrão da língua:
1) O texto é marcadamente dissertativo, com introdução, desenvolvimento e conclusão bem definidos.
2) No texto, o autor privilegia a narração, por meio da qual defende seu ponto de vista.
3) Ao longo do texto, trechos descritivos são utilizados para dar ao leitor a visão precisa das cenas narradas.
4) O autor opta por elaborar um texto prioritariamente expositivo, com diversos trechos injuntivos.
Está(ão) correta(s), apenas:

Dadas as suas funções comunicativas, é correto afirmar que o Texto 2 circula, preferencialmente, na esfera:
1) O fogo chega às 05h00 da manhã.
2) O fogo chega veloz, à cada segundo.
3) O fogo chega à consumir toda a casa.
4) O fogo chega à única loja que ainda não tinha sido atingida.
Estão corretas:
1) No segmento: “Tem centenas de boates Kiss funcionando no Brasil”, o verbo destacado deve ficar no singular, por corresponder ao verbo “haver”, que, neste caso, é impessoal.
2) No segmento: “Tem centenas de boates Kiss funcionando no Brasil”, a concordância mais adequada seria: “Tem centenas de boates Kisses funcionando no Brasil
3) No segmento: “Que a gente consiga tirar alguma lição dessa catástrofe”, a forma verbal destacada deve ficar no singular, apesar de a forma “a gente” representar a ideia de uma coletividade.
4) No enunciado: “Que a gente consiga tirar alguma lição dessa catástrofe, dessa comoção nacional que aconteceu em Santa Maria”, a forma verbal destacada deveria ficar no plural, já que o sujeito é composto.
Estão corretas:
1) No trecho: “O fogo se alastra rapidamente. O incêndio é numa empresa que recupera pneus, material altamente inflamável e tóxico. O combate às chamas é improvisado com balde, água mineral e mangueiras que não alcançam o foco do incêndio.” (2º §), a manutenção do tema é garantida pela opção de se utilizar palavras do mesmo campo semântico.
2) No trecho: “a corporação não tem escadas do tipo Magirus, que ajudam no resgate de vítimas e no combate a incêndios em lugares altos. Nem na capital, Palmas, de 228 mil habitantes, existe essa escada.” (5º §), o autor opta por fazer uma retomada por meio de um pronome.
3) No trecho: “Na cidade de Floriano (PI), que tem 57 mil habitantes, pode faltar o principal na hora de apagar o fogo.” (6º §), o autor opta por inserir um segmento explicativo, introduzido por pronome relativo.
4) No trecho: “Hoje, o nosso bombeiro está trabalhando com falta daquela força que nos move, que é a paixão, que é o amor de salvar e resgatar vidas alheias” (9º §), a repetição dos segmentos destacados confere ênfase ao enunciado, deixando-o mais contundente.
Estão corretas:
1) predomínio de uma tipologia textual injuntiva, como se vê no início do segundo parágrafo.
2) presença de diversos trechos intertextuais, a exemplo de, dentre outros, o primeiro parágrafo.
3) presença de trechos em discurso direto, isolados por aspas, por meio dos quais o leitor toma conhecimento de opiniões de diferentes pessoas.
4) emprego de perguntas de caráter retórico, como se vê no final do primeiro parágrafo.
Estão corretas:
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)
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)
