✓ verbatim from the press ◦ composed from multiple sources
The Fifth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously decided on June 9, 2026 to uphold the acquittal of an 18-year-old man accused of statutory rape against a 13-year-old girl in Paraná. Reporting Justice Messod Azulay Neto grounded the decision on the formation of a 'family unit' between those involved, applying the distinguishing technique to except the case from established jurisprudence. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"A Quinta Turma do Superior Tribunal de Justiça ( STJ) decidiu por unanimidade nesta terça-feira (09)... O relator do caso, ministro Messod Azulay Neto, votou pela manutenção da absolvição, sendo acompanhado pelos demais integrantes da turma."
"Recorra ao NAVES (Núcleo de apoio a vítima de estupro); [...] Recorra ao CREAS (Centro de Referência Especializado de Assistência Social); [...] Recorra ao NUDEM (Núcleo de Promoção e Defesa dos Direitos da Mulher da Defensoria Pública do Estado do Paraná)"
According to Justice Azulay Neto, 'the defendant always worked as a wholesale market porter and construction helper, has no criminal record. And most importantly, they form a family unit. They are only 5 years apart in age. There is no violence, no abuse, there is a stable relationship.' The justice argued that a conviction would 'break up the family unit, remove the father from living with the child and mother, transform it into an even greater tragedy.' ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O réu sempre trabalhou como carregador de Ceasa e servente de pedreiro. Não tem anotações na certidão. E o mais importante de tudo isso é que eles formam o núcleo familiar. [...] eles têm apenas 5 anos de diferença. Não há violência, não há abuso, há uma relação estável", afirmou. "Me parece que o distinguishing (distinção, em inglês) não pode deixar de ser feito. [...] mas neste momento eu estou mantendo a absolvição do réu em casos excepcionalíssimos."
The decision contrasts with STJ Theme 918, which established the thesis that 'for characterizing the crime of statutory rape under art. 217-A of the Penal Code, it suffices that the agent has carnal conjunction or practices any libidinous act with a person under 14 years old. The victim's consent, any prior sexual experience, or the existence of a romantic relationship between agent and victim do not preclude occurrence of the crime.' The reporting justice also mentioned Law 15.353 of March 2026, which prohibits relativization of the crime, but argued it does not apply retroactively to the defendant's detriment. ◦
Press quotes (1)
"Tese: "Para a caracterização do crime de estupro de vulnerável previsto no art. 217-A, caput, do Código Penal, basta que o agente tenha conjunção carnal ou pratique qualquer ato libidinoso com pessoa menor de 14 anos. O consentimento da vítima, sua eventual experiência sexual anterior ou a existência de relacionamento amoroso entre o agente e a vítima não afastam a ocorrência do crime."
The case proceeds under judicial secrecy, preventing identification of parties and limiting access to procedural details. The Paraná Public Prosecutor's Office had appealed the first and second instance acquittals but was defeated unanimously in the Fifth Panel. The other justices — Maria Marluce Caldas, Ribeiro Dantas and Joel Paciornik — accompanied the reporting justice, emphasizing the 'most exceptional' character of the case. ✓
Press quotes (3)
"O processo está sob segredo de Justiça. [...] Durante a sessão, foi negado o recurso do Ministério Público e mantida a absolvição de um homem acusado, cuja identidade não foi divulgada."
"É função da Defensoria Pública, ainda, atuar 'na preservação e na reparação dos direitos de pessoas vítimas de tortura, abusos sexuais, discriminação"
"Núcleo de Apoio à Vítima de Estupro - NAVES Rua Marechal Hermes, 751, 5º andar, sala 56 - Centro Cívico (41) 3250-4022 ou (41) 3250-4085 naves..."
All five outlets confirm the decision was unanimous in the STJ Fifth Panel, with Azulay Neto as reporting justice, upholding first and second instance acquittals.
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
Justice Marluce Caldas mentioned that 8 out of 10 rape cases at STJ involve vulnerable victims.
Justice Joel Paciornik mentioned 'family consent' as a factor in the case.
-
What was the timeframe between the start of the relationship and the birth of the common child mentioned by the reporting justice?
Why it's still unknown: The case is under judicial secrecy and chronological details were not disclosed in the public session.
-
What were the specific precedents cited by Justice Azulay Neto to justify the distinguishing?
Why it's still unknown: The press reported that the justice cited various precedents but did not specify which cases or decisions were mentioned.
-
Was there any statement from the victim or her legal representatives about the decision?
Why it's still unknown: Procedural secrecy prevented victim identification and press coverage did not document outreach attempts to assistance agencies like NAVES, NUDEM or Paraná Public Defender's Office.