O reconhecimento do estado de coisas inconstitucional do sistema prisional brasileiro pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal: uma análise da aplicação do ECI nas decisões do Tribunal de Justiça do Ceará

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of the declaration of the State of Unconstitutional Affairs (ECI) regarding the prison system in the judgment of the Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) No. 347 by the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, with a focus on decisions issued by the Court of Justice of the State of Ceará (TJCE). To this end, it discusses the structural collapse of the brazilian prison system, marked by massive violations of the fundamental rights of incarcerated individuals, such as overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, lack of basic assistance, and the selective nature of penal enforcement. The methodology applied to the research is both quantitative and qualitative, using measurable data related to the approvals and rejections of requests for release from the prison system, while simultaneously identifying argumentative patterns in judicial decisions. Initially, the constitutional foundations of imprisonment as a measure of last resort are addressed, along with the need for decarceration policies, in light of the principle of human dignity and the symbolic effectiveness of punishment, highlighting the disparity between legally imposed sentences and the actual ones served. Subsequently, the ECI is analyzed as a judicial technique, demonstrating its origin in the Constitutional Court of Colombia and its subsequent incorporation into brazilian law. The initial petition of the ADPF, the measures established, and their institutional repercussions are also studied. Finally, based on the outlined concepts and the legal instrument of the ECI, an empirical analysis is carried out within a defined time frame of decisions that either granted or denied requests for release from prison, whether in the context of early progression to a semiopen regime or through the application of alternatives to pre-trial detention. The aim is to identify argumentative patterns, legal grounds used, and the presence of a constitutional hermeneutic sensitive to the prison reality. In light of this, the study concludes that, although there has been some progress in interpreting the Supreme Court’s ruling, most of the case law still reflects a conservative and punitive stance, with limited incorporation of the established parameters and lacking concrete effectiveness at the state level.