FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTECTIVE MEASURE

AN ANALYSIS OF THE VICTIM’S CONSENT AS A CAUSE FOR ABSOLUTION

Abstract

This article addresses aspects of the Maria da Penha Law and the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), investigating whether the defendant’s proximity with the victim’s consent renders the conduct of breaching an urgent protective measure atypical. The research aimed to determine whether, according to the STJ, the victim’s consent can preclude the intent of breaching urgent protective measures. Case law research was conducted at the Superior Court of Justice between January 1, 2025, and April 30, 2025. The deductive approach method and the bibliographic research technique were employed, with a qualitative approach, based on the premise that the victim’s consent can play an important role in negating the crime of violating emergency protective measures. It is concluded that, during the research period, decisions were identified that recognized the conduct as non-criminal in cases involving free, voluntary, and unequivocal consent, while others upheld the classification of the offense based on the protection of judicial authority, the absence of valid consent, or the impossibility of re-examining the body of evidence. Supplementary research, updated through August 30, 2026, demonstrated that the controversy persists within the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), precluding the characterization of the matter as settled law.