Brazil

This case refers to a writ filed by the accused in order to not apply to his case Article 41 of Law 11.340/ 2006 (Maria da Penha Act). Article 41 states that the domestic crimes committed against women cannot be tried by the procedural rite of 9.099/1995 (Small Courts Act), which regulates the trial of petty offenses. The accused argued that his conduct did not fit into Article 41, and that applying this article would be unconstitutional for giving special treatment to women. The Supreme Court of Brazil denied the order and declared Article 41 constitutional.

The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil (STF) revoked the pretrial detention order issued against staff and patients of a clinic that was alleged to have been performing clandestine abortions. The 2^ND Panel of STF found that criminal laws against abortion were unconstitutional with respect to the case in hand, and the criminalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy during the first three months was incompatible with the protection of multiple fundamental rights of women. The decision set an important precedent for the sexual and reproductive rights of women in Brazil.

In this case, the 2^nd panel of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) issued a landmark ruling that pregnant women, mothers of children up to the age of 12, and mothers with disabled children accused of non-violent crimes should be permitted to await trial under house arrest rather than in detention. Justice Ricardo Lewandowski of the STF granted in this judgment habeas corpus ex officio so that women with children who had been arrested prior to this ruling and have not yet been placed under house arrest are entitled to the benefit.

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus of the petitioner, upholding the constitutionality of Article 224(a) of the Penal Code which establishes a presumption of violence in sex crimes against minors. The petitioner was convicted of rape and child abuse, and was sentenced to a prison term of eight years for rape and one year and ten months for child abuse.

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus of the petitioner, who had been convicted by the Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) of raping his two minor daughters, both under the age of 14, over a period of five years. Although the petitioner had been sentenced to 16 years and 8 months in jail for his crimes, the lower court subsequently reduced the petitioner’ sentence by one-quarter, pursuant to Presidential Decree No.

Habeas Corpus No. 783,927 Superior Court of Justice (2023)

The First Panel of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF), by majority, denied habeas corpus relief that sought to reclassify the crime of rape of a vulnerable person (Article 217-A of the Penal Code) as the misdemeanor of offensive molestation (Article 65 of the Law of Criminal Misdemeanors, later repealed by Law No. 14,132/2021).

Law No. 11.108/2005 was enacted to amend existing Law No. 8.080/1990, which regulates the Unified Health System (“SUS”). It included a new chapter providing that pregnant woman shall have the right to an accompanying party to be present during all health services provided by the SUS in connection with labor, birth, and the immediate post-partum period.

A Lei Federal n. 11.108/2005 altera a Lei n. 8.080/1990, para garantir às parturientes o direito à presença de acompanhante durante o trabalho de parto, parto e pós-parto imediato, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS.

On March 9, 2015, Brazil’s existing Penal Code was amended to criminalize femicide, with sentencing ranging from twelve to thirty years of imprisonment. The new legislation defined femicide as a sex-based homicide committed against women, with the involvement of domestic violence, discrimination or contempt for women. The crime is aggravated if the victim is a pregnant woman, a woman within the first three months of maternity, a girl under the age of fourteen years or a woman over sixty years of age.

This law prohibits any discrimination based on sex, origin,  race, color, marital status, family status, disability, professional rehabilitation, age, among others, regarding the access to, or maintenance of, the employment relationship. Article 1 prohibits any discriminatory practices for the effect of access to employment (except with respect to minimum age, in order to prevent child labor).