The JMU’s (Military Justice of the Union) Purview to Judge Crimes Committed during Operations to Guarantee Law and Order

Abstract

This article analyzes the purview of the Military Justice of the Union (JMU) to judge crimes committed during operations to guarantee law and order. It further analyzes the impact of decisions rendered in writs under the Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade nº 5032 (Direct Inconstitutionality Action) and Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) 289 (Fundamental Principle of Accusation of Noncompliance) on the Armed Forces. In addition, the article explores the legal mechanisms that underpin such an analysis. In the absence of any such mechanisms, the author researched doctrine and case law to provide arguments that support the continuance of the JMU’s current purview. It is in this sense that arguments have been put forward to demonstrate that the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed during operations to guarantee law and order must remain with the JMU, since the operations used to guarantee law and order are considered military activity. For this reason, any crimes committed in such an operation would be considered military crimes in conformance with Article 9, II, d, of the Código Penal Militar (Military Penal Code) and §7º of Article 15 of the Lei Complementar 97/1999 (Supplementary Law). The method used was deductive. This research is bibliographical, qualitative, applied, demonstrative, and explanatory. It is concluded that after analysis of case law, that the tendency of the Supreme Court is to permit the power of judging the aforementioned crimes to remain with the JMU.