https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/2055 2026-08-10T17:50:20Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/6365 Título: Audiência de custódia e segurança pública: desafios de implementação, efetividade e perspectivas de aprimoramento Abstact: The custody hearing is an important mechanism for judicial review of detention and the protection of fundamental rights. This study analyzes its legal foundations, its relationship with decarceration policy, and the challenges of its implementation in the context of public security, seeking to understand how the protection of the rights of persons in custody can be reconciled with the effectiveness of State responses. The research adopts a qualitative approach based on bibliographic and documentary research, including legal scholarship, legislation, institutional documents, and judicial decisions. The findings indicate that the effectiveness of custody hearings depends not only on their legal framework and formal implementation, but also on the institutional conditions related to the application and monitoring of precautionary decisions. The study concludes that improving custody hearings requires preserving their protective purposes while evaluating their implementation and strengthening the conditions necessary for effective responses within the criminal justice system. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/6364 Título: Judiciário, desenvolvimento e necropolítica a partir da duplicação da BR-135 Abstact: This monographic study analyzes the actions of the Maranhão Judiciary in the socioenvironmental conflicts arising from the duplication of the BR-135 highway, a project that directly impacted quilombola communities in the Itapecuru Valley, in the Itapecuru-Mirim region (MA). The study starts from the observation that, since the second half of the 20th century, Maranhão has consolidated a development model based on large infrastructure, mining, and agribusiness projects, of which the BR-135, the main access corridor to the Port of Itaqui, constitutes a contemporary expression, generating tensions between developmentalist logic and the territorial rights of traditional peoples. The general objective of the research is to analyze the actions of the Maranhão Judiciary in conflicts related to development policies that affect traditional communities, in light of necropolitics theory, identifying their effects on the realization of human rights. The specific objectives include examining the theoretical foundations linking development, necropolitics, and human rights; understanding the historical process of implementing large projects in the state; investigating the legal conflicts generated by the project; and analyzing the arguments mobilized in judicial decisions. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative approach, of an exploratory nature and interdisciplinary character, bringing together Law, Legal Sociology, and Development Studies. The research path is grounded in bibliographic, documentary, and jurisprudential research, with a survey of decisions on the website of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1), and Public Civil Action No. 1024159-16.2019.4.01.3700, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office against DNIT and the State of Maranhão, was selected as the case study. The theoretical basis of the study is anchored in discussions of Necropolitics (Mbembe, 2018), Development (Escobar, 2007), the State and symbolic power (Bourdieu, 2014), Territorialization (Almeida, 2002), Legal Pluralism (Wolkmer, 2001), and Environmental Justice (Acselrad, 2009). The results indicate that, although the Judiciary formally recognized the mandatory nature of the Quilombola Component Study and of free, prior, and informed consultation as provided for in ILO Convention 169, its actions repeatedly prioritized procedural aspects to the detriment of the substantive protection of collective rights: it authorized the resumption of construction works before the studies were completed, accepted the reduction of the consultation's radius of coverage from 40 to 10 km, and systematically denied quilombola associations direct participation in the proceedings. This decision-making pattern confirms the hypothesis that the Judiciary, even though constitutionally entrusted with protecting fundamental rights, tends to reproduce developmentalist rationalities that subordinate territorial and cultural rights to economic interests, functioning more as an instance of conflict management and containment than as an effective space for guaranteeing quilombola self-determination. 2026-07-16T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/6363 Título: Direito penal simbólico e violência nos estádios: análise da efetividade da responsabilização criminal dos torcedores à luz da Lei Geral do Esporte Abstact: This research analyzed the effectiveness of the criminal liability provisions in the General Sports Law (Law No. 14.597/2023) in addressing violence committed by organized fan groups at sporting events, through the lens of Symbolic Criminal Law theory. The investigation was prompted by the observation that, despite the legislative strengthening brought about by the new law, episodes of violence continue to occur frequently in the Brazilian sports landscape, raising questions about the actual capacity of criminal norms to bring about concrete changes in social reality. The general objective was to determine whether the harsher sanctions introduced by the General Sports Law serve as an effective tool for preventing and suppressing violence or if they primarily produce symbolic effects. Specific objectives included examining the evolution of Brazilian sports legislation; analyzing the legal liability mechanisms provided for in Law No. 14.597/2023—focusing on the criminal liability of organized fan group members while using civil liability aspects to contextualize the sports legal system—and investigating how these norms are applied in national case law. The research is qualitative in nature, employing a deductive method and an exploratory-descriptive approach, utilizing bibliographic and documentary research alongside an analysis of case law. The results demonstrated that the General Sports Law achieved significant progress by systematizing sports legislation and expanding liability mechanisms; however, its effectiveness remains contingent upon the implementation of preventive measures, coordination among oversight bodies, and the concrete application of the law's provisions. It was also found that Brazilian courts are applying the provisions of the General Sports Law, particularly regarding criminal liability, while acknowledging the importance of civil rulings for understanding sports security policy; however, this application remains predominantly reactive, taking effect only after conflicts have occurred. It is concluded that strengthening the sanctions system, considered in isolation, proves insufficient to significantly reduce violence at sporting events, demonstrating that the effectiveness of the legislation depends on a combination of repression, prevention, oversight, and permanent public policies. 2026-07-20T00:00:00Z https://repositorio.uema.br/jspui/handle/123456789/6357 Título: A judicialização do Benefício de Prestação Continuada - BPC/LOAS para pessoas com Transtorno do Espectro Autista: uma análise do critério socioeconômico na concessão do benefício à luz das decisões do STF Abstact: This study analyzes the judicialization of the Continuous Cash Benefit (BPC/LOAS) for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), focusing on the overcoming of the socioeconomic criterion in light of the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF). The BPC is an important social protection mechanism that guarantees a monthly minimum wage to persons with disabilities and elderly individuals in situations of socioeconomic vulnerability, regardless of prior contributions to the social security system. Although Brazilian legislation recognizes individuals with ASD as persons with disabilities for all legal purposes, administrative denials by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) remain frequent, particularly due to restrictive interpretations regarding the assessment of disability and the socioeconomic condition of the applicant’s family. In this context, the research seeks to understand the factors that lead to administrative denials and the legal grounds used by the Judiciary to overturn such decisions. To achieve this objective, a qualitative methodology was adopted, based on bibliographic and documentary research, including the analysis of legislation, specialized legal doctrine, and case law from higher courts. The study demonstrates that the strict application of the per capita income criterion often fails to reflect the actual circumstances of families of individuals with ASD, who face significant expenses related to treatment, therapies, and specialized care. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the STF and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has consolidated a more flexible interpretation of socioeconomic vulnerability, allowing judges to consider concrete evidence of financial hardship beyond objective income thresholds. The findings indicate that the judicialization of the BPC reveals shortcomings in the implementation of social assistance policies and highlights the essential role of the Judiciary in ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights, particularly the rights to social assistance, human dignity, and social inclusion for individuals with ASD. 2026-07-16T00:00:00Z