Análise dos diferentes padrões decisórios de medidas protetivas de urgência nos Juizados de Violência Doméstica do Distrito Federal

Abstract

This research aims to understand the decision-making practices in the Federal District of Brazil regarding the requirements for intervention orders (IO) for family violence against women during the year of 2019. A quantitative and qualitative documentary analysis of a sample of 1216 processes was carried out. There were different decision-making patterns among the 20 courts studied. While four courts reject more than a third of women's requests for protection, in another six courts this rejection is less than 10%. Half of the IO were decided by court duty, which has a higher-than-average rejection rate. In five courts, there was a practice of deferring the IO for a few months. Denials are usually justified by insufficient evidence (35.6%), lack of urgency (34.7%), absence of gender-based violence (18.5%) and absence of severity or risk (7, 6%). The contexts usually recognized as not being gender-based violence are family conflicts (66.7%), property conflict (14.8%), conflicts over custody and visitation rights (9.3%) and reciprocal aggression (9 .3%). There is no uniformity between the courts for the designation of a justification hearing. In six courts, there is a practice of revoking the IO against the manifestation of the victim or the prosecution office, in percentages substantially higher than the average. In only one quarter of cases there was some type of multidisciplinary intervention documented in the IO file, but in three courts there were service referrals in more than two thirds of the cases. The findings indicate the importance of better uniformity in judicial practices.