Carvalho Filho, João Francisco Liberato; https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6072-5640; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0882645544562995
Resumo:
This dissertation investigates the compatibility of self-deposition as a means of evidence within
Brazilian civil procedure, seeking to reconstruct its legitimacy and functionality in light of
contemporary procedural dogmatics. The analysis begins with the observation that self
deposition—understood as the possibility for a party to provide statements with evidentiary value
in their own favor—is frequently rejected by traditional conceptions of the process, marked by
excessive formalism and a restrictive interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this
context, the work proposes a critical reinterpretation of procedural orality, recovering its
historical, theoretical, and normative foundations and examining its incidence across the various
phases of judicial proceedings. The dissertation is structured into six chapters: the first presents
the introduction, including the delimitation of the topic, the formulation of the research problem,
the objectives, and the adopted methodology; the second develops a theoretical and historical
analysis of orality and its subprinciples within the civil procedural system; the third proposes an
updated typology of oral means of evidence and examines the current evidentiary structure; the
fourth analyzes party participation in the evidentiary phase, with an emphasis on cooperation,
efficiency, and procedural adequacy; the fifth chapter thoroughly examines the normative,
procedural, and doctrinal viability of self-deposition, formulating arguments in favor of its
acceptance and critically addressing the existing objections; finally, the sixth chapter presents the
conclusions, consolidating the theoretical and practical foundations that support the recognition
of self-deposition as a legitimate form of participation in civil proceedings. It is argued, in
conclusion, that self-deposition contributes to the strengthening of the adversarial system,
enhances the democratic density of the process, and qualifies the production of evidence,
affirming itself as an expression of the fundamental right to be heard within the process.