Report No. 40 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 1706-18 (Brazil)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2025
• Case Type: Inadmissibility

REPORT No. 40/25

PETITION 1706-18

REPORT ON INADMISSIBILITY

D., M. & I.

BRAZIL

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 43

26 March 2025

Original: Portuguese

Approved electronically by the Commission on March 26, 2025.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 40/25. Petition 1706-18. I..

D., M.a.I.B.. M. 26, 2025.

www.cidh.org

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

   Petitioners:	D., L.A.P.d.R., Stefany Bageski Cruz
   Alleged victim:	D., M. and I.
   Respondent State:	Brazil
   Rights invoked:	Articles 8 (judicial guarantees) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights1

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR2

   Filing of the petition:	August 24, 2018
   Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	December 3, 2019, August 9, 2021, November 1, 2022, December 28, 2022, February 2, 2023, M.7., 2023, May 19, 2023, May 29, 2023
   Warning about possible archiving:	February 7, 2023
   Response of the petitioner to the warning of possible archiving:	February 9, 2023
   N. of the petition to the S.:	J. 18, 2023
   R. for extension:	October 17, 2023
   State’s first response:	November 20, 2023

3. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Yes
Competence Ratione loci:	Yes
Competence Ratione temporis:	Yes
Competence Ratione materiae:	Yes, American Convention on Human Rights (instrument adopted on September 25, 1992)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, CHARACTERIZATION, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES, AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and International res judicata:	No
Rights declared admissible:	None
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	No, in accordance with Section VI
Timeliness of the petition:	No, in accordance with Section VI

V. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Position of the Petitioning Party

1. The petitioner alleges that Ms. D. did not have judicial guarantees and protection when she separated from her ex-partner and reported him for sexual abuse against one of the couple's daughters.

2. The petitioner reports that Ms. D. was married to Mr. F. and had two daughters with him: M. and I. Although she mentions both children, the petitioner narrates specific facts related to the daughter M. According to the petitioner, in summary, throughout the 12-year relationship with M.F., Ms. D. suffered various forms of violence (physical, sexual, psychological, moral, and patrimonial), being isolated from family and friends. She states that her ex-partner used drugs and mixed alcohol with psychotropic medications, including in front of his daughters, without any concern for their well-being. On several occasions, he manipulated her so that she would not end the relationship. After the separation, in 2013, Ms. D. went to live with her parents in another state, which forced her to leave her job as a professor and coordinator of a higher education course. S. after arriving at her parents' house, Ms. D. was surprised by the information that her daughter M., a four-year-old child, was undergoing psychological counseling. Ms. D.'s mother recommended that she talk to the psychologist in charge, as she did not have the courage to tell her what was happening. The psychologist M.S., linked to the Program for Attention to Families in Situations of Violence and the Guardianship Council, reported that the girl M. had reported, in playful consultations, that she had suffered sexual abuse perpetrated by her own father. Ms. D. was then advised by the social assistance and psychology team to report the case.

3. According to the petitioner, the report was made and Ms. D. also obtained a court order determining the removal of Mr. F. from the children. H., even after protective measures, Ms. D. suffered threats and persecution from her ex-partner and his family. Mr. F. allegedly threatened to kill her, in addition to coercing his daughter M. not to report the abuse, shouting and blaming her for the possibility of him being arrested. She claims that such threats and coercion considerably worsened M.'s mental health, generating panic and feelings of guilt in the child.

4. The petitioner also reports that Mr. F., being a lawyer and having influential relatives and friends (including judges, public prosecutors, and police officers), managed to discourage numerous lawyers from representing Ms. D., who began to fear the partiality of the authorities. Also, according to the petitioner, this influence culminated in a context of fear and insecurity, since the children's father would use his economic and political power to intimidate the maternal family. She describes that the girls' paternal grandmother, Mr. F.'s mother, also practiced acts of violence and persecution against Ms. D. and her parents. T. was, for example, an attempt to kidnap the children at school dismissal; on another occasion, the paternal grandmother had chased the car in which Ms. D. and her daughters were, almost causing an accident. She also narrates an episode in which the paternal grandmother physically assaulted the maternal grandfather in public, knocking out three of his teeth with punches. She reports that, although Ms. D. informed the authorities about these aggressions and threats, she was discouraged by her own lawyers from formalizing certain complaints at the police station, as they feared that the Judiciary would interpret the initiative as an attempt at parental alienation. T., the maternal family would have remained in constant danger, without an effective response from state institutions.

5. The petitioner emphasizes that, from 2013 to 2017, the children M. and I. went through approximately nine psychologists, many of them appointed by the Judiciary at the request of the father, in a repetitive search for "new reports". In all documents, the sexual abuse to the detriment of M. was confirmed, with indication of its authorship by the father. H., the ex-partner and his family continued to question these conclusions, and the F.J. would have requested new evaluations, without this resulting in effective protection for the children. According to the petitioner, there was also a report prepared by the psychologist of a public body specialized in sexual abuse that pointed to the worsening of M.'s psychological condition and the need to cancel paternal family visits, especially the grandmother's visits. H., this document would not have received due attention from the competent authorities.

6. For the petitioner, the judicial authorities, despite evidence that the abuse occurred, did not protect the girl M. In this sense, the petitioner argues that the investigation of the abuse was deficient, and that the internal civil and criminal proceedings were lengthy and partial. She argues that Ms. D. did everything she could and fought with all her strength, facing a legal battle to have custody of her daughters and prohibit the father's visit, but that the Brazilian justice, until 2018, had not resolved the situation. She points out that the father would have "manipulated" the judiciary, that justice would not listen to her arguments and evidence, and that the children M. and I. went through a cruel judicial torture. G. the aforementioned context, because she no longer believed in B. justice, Ms. D. decided to flee the country accompanied by the children M. and I., having sought "humanitarian refuge" in another country.

7. The petitioner alleges that,...