URGENT PROTECTIVE MEASURE: PROTECTION OF THE VICTIM OR VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE “AGGRESSOR”?

Abstract

The Maria da Penha Law (Law No. 11.340/2006) constitutes a landmark in combating domestic violence, introducing urgent protective measures. However, its application raises constitutional debates, as they can be granted without prior manifestation of the accused, undermining the principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense. This study aims to analyze the constitutionality of these measures, verifying whether their immediate adoption is in harmony with due process. The relevance of the topic stems from the need to reconcile the comprehensive protection of women with the fundamental guarantees of the alleged aggressor. The research, developed through a literature review and document analysis, identified that the measures are personal and patrimonial in nature, as provided for in articles 22 to 24 of the law. It was found that, although essential to protect the victim, their application must be judicious, avoiding abuse and ensuring proportionality. It is concluded that their legitimacy derives from the balance between urgent protective measures and respect for constitutional guarantees, consolidating them as a fundamental instrument in combating gender-based violence.