Vitor Fonsêca
Doutor, Mestre e Especialista em Direito Processual Civil (PUC-SP). Coordenador Acadêmico e Professor do Instituto de Direito Aplicado (IDA). Coordenador da Linha de Pesquisa “Processo civil e direitos humanos” e Professor do Grupo de Estudos do Sistema Interamericano (GESIDH). Secretário Adjunto do Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual (AM). Promotor de Justiça (AM).
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Vitor Fonsêca
instrumentos internacionais (hard law e soft law) e na jurisprudência de tribunais internacionais de direitos humanos. Mesmo sem um tratado internacional, existem instrumentos de hard law e soft law que abordam especificamente a discriminação estrutural sofrida pelas pessoas LGBTQIAPN+ no acesso à justiça. Por exemplo, a Convenção Interamericana contra Todas as Formas de Discriminação e Intolerância garante igualdade de acesso à justiça para as vítimas de discriminação e intolerância (artigo 10.º). Além disso, os Princípios de Yogyakarta (soft law) são levados em consideração pelos órgãos internacionais de direitos humanos como uma fonte de direito internacional de direitos, tratando especificamente do acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+ nos Princípios 8 e 28. Também foram encontradas resoluções da ONU que tratam do acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+, sempre num contexto de discriminação estrutural, e a Opinião Consultiva 24/17 da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Também foram encontrados vários casos da jurisprudência da Corte Europeia e da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos que confirmam que existem e estão sendo violadas garantias judiciais no acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+. Os casos encontrados foram classificados em: a) discriminação contra casais LGBTQIAPN+; b) proibição de homossexuais nas Forças Armadas; c) proibição de “paradas LGBTQIAPN+”; d) violência simbólica contra a população LGBTQIAPN+; e e) cirurgia genital de adequação (“mudança de sexo”). Todos os casos estudados revelam que a discriminação ainda é o maior obstáculo ao acesso à justiça para as pessoas LGBTQIAPN+. Em alguns casos, inclusive, até o juiz foi considerado parcial devido à discriminação sofrida pelas vítimas LGBTQIAPN+ durante o processo judicial.
ABSTRACT: Access to justice has always been about obstacles and barriers and, historically, we all know LGBTQIAPN+ persons always fought against discrimination, exclusion, stereotypes and prejudice. So, why don’t scientific studies focus more on the impacts of human rights on access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ population? We conducted research about international human rights applied to the access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons, especially human rights standards found in international instruments (hard law and soft law) and in the case-law of international human rights courts. We find that, even without an international treaty, there are hard law and soft law instruments that specifically address the structural discrimination suffered by LGBTQIAPN+ persons in access to justice. For example, the Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance (hard law) guarantees equal access to justice for victims of discrimination and intolerance (art. 10). Also, the Yogyakarta Principles (soft law) are taken into consideration by international human rights bodies as a source of international rights law, especially dealing with access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ people in Principles 8 and 28. We also find many UN Resolutions and the Advisory Opinion n. 24/17 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, dealing with access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons always in a context of structural discrimination. We also find several cases from the case-law of the European Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that confirm that judicial guarantees exist and are being violated in access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons. We classify the cases we found into five categories: a) discrimination against LGBTQIAPN+ couples; b) prohibition of homosexuals in the Armed Forces; c) prohibition of “LGBTQIAPN+ parades”; d) symbolic violence against the LGBTQIAPN+ population; and e) gender-affirming surgery (“sex change”). All cases reveal that discrimination is still the biggest obstacle to access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons. In some cases, actually, even the judge was considered partial due to the discrimination suffered by the LGBTQIAPN+ victims during the judicial proceedings.
ABSTRACT: This article discusses the impacts of the social model of disability on access to justice. Question: —Is there a social model in civil justice for personswith disabilities? Documentary research by national and foreign authors who explain the transition from the medical model to the social model of disability and its impact on access to justice for personswith disabilities was used as a methodology, in addition scientific works and international documents focused on human rights that indicate good practices and concrete examples of this impact on the process. To this end, the study begins by identifying the differences between the medical model and the social model of disability. It then proposes Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesas an international standard for this social model. In the end, the work presents the expected barriers for this social model in civil justice, especially with regard to legal capacity, and suggests “procedural adaptations” as an important accessibility tool in civil justice. The article suggests that the idea of an “inclusive due processof law” needs to be adopted, as procedural rules need to be adapted to personswith disabilities; it also suggests that the customization of these adaptations does not constitute a “favor” to or a “persecution” against persons with disabilities.
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the child´s right to be heard in judicial proceedings as part of article 8th of American Convention on Human Rights and how Interamerican Court of Human Rights´ case-law interprets the child´s participation in courts. Concerning advisory-opinions, OC 17/2002 and OC 21/2014 have relevant international standards for the rights of the children, such as respect for the child's own opinion (which is not to be confused with the parents' opinion) in any judicial proceeding that affects their rights and interests. With regard to Interamerican Court´s case law, Cases of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Furlán and Familiy v. Argentina and Ramírez Escobar et al v. Guatemala show that judicial hearing is not enough to safeguard the child's right to be heard in judicial proceeding. The children´s hearing is the first step to guarantee the right to be heard (as highlighted in the Case of Furlán), but hearing the children is insufficient if their opinion is not taken into account by the judges (as highlighted in the Case of Atala Riffo), for example. Therefore, further studies are suggested on the impact of these results, particularly on the difference between the direct and indirect participation of the child in judicial proceedings. Considering the results, it is not possible to treat children as mere witnesses for the satisfaction of adults' rights in judicial proceedings.
ABSTRACT: Reasoning in judicial decisions is an important guarantee in Brazilian Civil Procedure Rules, especially after article 489, § 1º.. However few studies try to compare these rules to international standards of Interamerican Court of Human Rights case-law. This paper
presents a collection of cases in Interamerican Court case-law related to reasoning in judicial decisions, comparing them to national standards of article 489, § 1º, of Brazilian Civil Procedure Rules.
Espera-se, com isso, contribuir na evolução dos estudos processuais em torno da relação entre o processo e os direitos humanos, de modo a não isolar a proteção dos direitos humanos apenas ao âmbito internacional.
Espera-se demonstrar - com casos concretos - que a discussão dos tratados internacionais de direitos humanos pode ser realizada nacionalmente (especificamente no plano processual interno), e não apenas nos organismos internacionais.
RESUMEN: El artículo 8 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos da la impresión de que el artículo solo se aplica a las causas penales. Las expresiones "persona inculpada de delito" y "acusación penal", por ejemplo, pueden mantener alejado el artículo de casos civiles. El estudo sigue la evolución de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en sus opiniones consultivas y sus sentencias, sobre cómo aplicar las garantías judiciales en casos civiles.
Após, justifica-se o porquê de se defender a necessidade de superação formal das súmulas do STF e do STJ após o surgimento do CPC/2015.
Por fim, apresentam-se as garantias processuais mínimas, previstas no texto do CPC/2015, para o acompanhamento dessa superação formal das súmulas.
revisada ou cancelada.
ABSTRACT: The paper addresses the effects of human rights treaties on Brazilian civil procedure law. First, it analyzes the current overview of the treaties as law sources. Then, it demonstrates how treaties influence the domestic law. Further on, it shows how the human rights treaties are considered in Brazilian civil procedure law. The paper concludes it is necessary to adapt the new Civil Procedure Code, the Brazilian court decisions and the scientific studies to the human rights treaties and to its interpretation by international courts.
instrumentos internacionais (hard law e soft law) e na jurisprudência de tribunais internacionais de direitos humanos. Mesmo sem um tratado internacional, existem instrumentos de hard law e soft law que abordam especificamente a discriminação estrutural sofrida pelas pessoas LGBTQIAPN+ no acesso à justiça. Por exemplo, a Convenção Interamericana contra Todas as Formas de Discriminação e Intolerância garante igualdade de acesso à justiça para as vítimas de discriminação e intolerância (artigo 10.º). Além disso, os Princípios de Yogyakarta (soft law) são levados em consideração pelos órgãos internacionais de direitos humanos como uma fonte de direito internacional de direitos, tratando especificamente do acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+ nos Princípios 8 e 28. Também foram encontradas resoluções da ONU que tratam do acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+, sempre num contexto de discriminação estrutural, e a Opinião Consultiva 24/17 da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Também foram encontrados vários casos da jurisprudência da Corte Europeia e da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos que confirmam que existem e estão sendo violadas garantias judiciais no acesso à justiça para pessoas LGBTQIAPN+. Os casos encontrados foram classificados em: a) discriminação contra casais LGBTQIAPN+; b) proibição de homossexuais nas Forças Armadas; c) proibição de “paradas LGBTQIAPN+”; d) violência simbólica contra a população LGBTQIAPN+; e e) cirurgia genital de adequação (“mudança de sexo”). Todos os casos estudados revelam que a discriminação ainda é o maior obstáculo ao acesso à justiça para as pessoas LGBTQIAPN+. Em alguns casos, inclusive, até o juiz foi considerado parcial devido à discriminação sofrida pelas vítimas LGBTQIAPN+ durante o processo judicial.
ABSTRACT: Access to justice has always been about obstacles and barriers and, historically, we all know LGBTQIAPN+ persons always fought against discrimination, exclusion, stereotypes and prejudice. So, why don’t scientific studies focus more on the impacts of human rights on access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ population? We conducted research about international human rights applied to the access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons, especially human rights standards found in international instruments (hard law and soft law) and in the case-law of international human rights courts. We find that, even without an international treaty, there are hard law and soft law instruments that specifically address the structural discrimination suffered by LGBTQIAPN+ persons in access to justice. For example, the Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance (hard law) guarantees equal access to justice for victims of discrimination and intolerance (art. 10). Also, the Yogyakarta Principles (soft law) are taken into consideration by international human rights bodies as a source of international rights law, especially dealing with access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ people in Principles 8 and 28. We also find many UN Resolutions and the Advisory Opinion n. 24/17 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, dealing with access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons always in a context of structural discrimination. We also find several cases from the case-law of the European Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that confirm that judicial guarantees exist and are being violated in access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons. We classify the cases we found into five categories: a) discrimination against LGBTQIAPN+ couples; b) prohibition of homosexuals in the Armed Forces; c) prohibition of “LGBTQIAPN+ parades”; d) symbolic violence against the LGBTQIAPN+ population; and e) gender-affirming surgery (“sex change”). All cases reveal that discrimination is still the biggest obstacle to access to justice for LGBTQIAPN+ persons. In some cases, actually, even the judge was considered partial due to the discrimination suffered by the LGBTQIAPN+ victims during the judicial proceedings.
ABSTRACT: This article discusses the impacts of the social model of disability on access to justice. Question: —Is there a social model in civil justice for personswith disabilities? Documentary research by national and foreign authors who explain the transition from the medical model to the social model of disability and its impact on access to justice for personswith disabilities was used as a methodology, in addition scientific works and international documents focused on human rights that indicate good practices and concrete examples of this impact on the process. To this end, the study begins by identifying the differences between the medical model and the social model of disability. It then proposes Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesas an international standard for this social model. In the end, the work presents the expected barriers for this social model in civil justice, especially with regard to legal capacity, and suggests “procedural adaptations” as an important accessibility tool in civil justice. The article suggests that the idea of an “inclusive due processof law” needs to be adopted, as procedural rules need to be adapted to personswith disabilities; it also suggests that the customization of these adaptations does not constitute a “favor” to or a “persecution” against persons with disabilities.
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the child´s right to be heard in judicial proceedings as part of article 8th of American Convention on Human Rights and how Interamerican Court of Human Rights´ case-law interprets the child´s participation in courts. Concerning advisory-opinions, OC 17/2002 and OC 21/2014 have relevant international standards for the rights of the children, such as respect for the child's own opinion (which is not to be confused with the parents' opinion) in any judicial proceeding that affects their rights and interests. With regard to Interamerican Court´s case law, Cases of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Furlán and Familiy v. Argentina and Ramírez Escobar et al v. Guatemala show that judicial hearing is not enough to safeguard the child's right to be heard in judicial proceeding. The children´s hearing is the first step to guarantee the right to be heard (as highlighted in the Case of Furlán), but hearing the children is insufficient if their opinion is not taken into account by the judges (as highlighted in the Case of Atala Riffo), for example. Therefore, further studies are suggested on the impact of these results, particularly on the difference between the direct and indirect participation of the child in judicial proceedings. Considering the results, it is not possible to treat children as mere witnesses for the satisfaction of adults' rights in judicial proceedings.
ABSTRACT: Reasoning in judicial decisions is an important guarantee in Brazilian Civil Procedure Rules, especially after article 489, § 1º.. However few studies try to compare these rules to international standards of Interamerican Court of Human Rights case-law. This paper
presents a collection of cases in Interamerican Court case-law related to reasoning in judicial decisions, comparing them to national standards of article 489, § 1º, of Brazilian Civil Procedure Rules.
Espera-se, com isso, contribuir na evolução dos estudos processuais em torno da relação entre o processo e os direitos humanos, de modo a não isolar a proteção dos direitos humanos apenas ao âmbito internacional.
Espera-se demonstrar - com casos concretos - que a discussão dos tratados internacionais de direitos humanos pode ser realizada nacionalmente (especificamente no plano processual interno), e não apenas nos organismos internacionais.
RESUMEN: El artículo 8 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos da la impresión de que el artículo solo se aplica a las causas penales. Las expresiones "persona inculpada de delito" y "acusación penal", por ejemplo, pueden mantener alejado el artículo de casos civiles. El estudo sigue la evolución de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en sus opiniones consultivas y sus sentencias, sobre cómo aplicar las garantías judiciales en casos civiles.
Após, justifica-se o porquê de se defender a necessidade de superação formal das súmulas do STF e do STJ após o surgimento do CPC/2015.
Por fim, apresentam-se as garantias processuais mínimas, previstas no texto do CPC/2015, para o acompanhamento dessa superação formal das súmulas.
revisada ou cancelada.
ABSTRACT: The paper addresses the effects of human rights treaties on Brazilian civil procedure law. First, it analyzes the current overview of the treaties as law sources. Then, it demonstrates how treaties influence the domestic law. Further on, it shows how the human rights treaties are considered in Brazilian civil procedure law. The paper concludes it is necessary to adapt the new Civil Procedure Code, the Brazilian court decisions and the scientific studies to the human rights treaties and to its interpretation by international courts.