The maintenance of urgent protective measures and defensive resistance

The contradictory in the Maria da Penha law procedure

Abstract

The protection of women is a central concern and must be taken into account in view of the pains imposed by patriarchy that manifest themselves in sexist expressions inside and outside the home and in all all social classes. In this sense, the decreeing of Urgent Protective Measures must occur without the requirement of robust evidence, with the woman’s word being sufficient. That said, it is important to note that the process is an adversarial procedure and that the decisions of the Judiciary are legitimate when based on compliance with the legal system, adjusting the fact to the norm in a rational and logical manner, and this task must be developed through a procedure. Therefore, given resistance on the part of the alleged aggressor who had his rights restricted as a result of the granting of the injunctions, it is necessary to reestablish the phases of the process, doubting the initial narrative, admitting the evidence, which must be produced and/or submitted to judicial scrutiny in order to then decide, increasing the degree of evidentiary sufficiency, previously limited by the need for differentiated protection.