Embedded legal interpretation: Interpretative disputes regarding urgent protective measures and its consequences to women’s lives

Abstract

This article portraits the interpretative (doctrinal and judicial) disputes concerning the “legal nature” of urgent protective measures, which are prescribed by the Maria da Penha Statute. By giving privilege to the women’s point of view regarding the interpretation of law, this work draws attention to the fact that an interpretative dispute about conceptual taxonomy, although seemingly anodyne, hides crucial consequences to women’s lives and safety. We utilized interviews with actresses from the justice system and from assistance network to victims of violence to demonstrate how the interpretation which considers the urgent protective measures accessories to the judicial procedure imposes on women an unjustified burden to a conquered legal right. Besides leaving them unprotected, such interpretation submits women to revictimizing procedures, limits the alternatives of support to the victims and suppresses their choices.