O Federal Supreme Court (STF) is expected to judge this Thursday 10 important actions regarding the Judiciary’s anti-asylum policy.
Under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, there are two actions that question whether the National Council of Justice (CNJ) went beyond its responsibilities by establishing, last year, the Anti-Asylum Policy of the Judiciary.
The actions were presented by the Brazilian Psychiatric Association and the National Association of the Public Ministry. União Brasil and Podemos are also listed as authors of the demands, which are reported by minister Edson Fachin.
What the case is about
Last year, the CNJ published a resolution ordering the closure of judicial asylums in the country. In practice, the resolution aims to ensure that people with mental disorders who have committed crimes are treated by the Unified Health System (SUS), through the Care Centers Psychosocial (CAPs).
Responsibility for the transfer lies with the state courts and takes time. Only more than a year after the approval of the resolution, the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) managed, at the beginning of this month, to present its plan for anti-asylum policy.
The original deadline for the closure of judicial asylums would have ended last August, but ended up being postponed to November 29th.
In the actions to be judged by the STF, the entities argue that the CNJ resolution inappropriately alters the rules of the Brazilian Penal Code, such as the requirement for psychiatric medical expertise to evaluate the hospitalization security measure.
According to the entities, the resolution could also take away from people who need to be admitted to psychiatric medical centers the right to restore their mental health.
Another point highlighted by the authors of the action is that the number of CAPs – currently, around 2,800, according to data from the federal government – is not enough to meet patient demand. This, in practice, can make implementing the resolution difficult.
The CNJ, on the other hand, says that the resolution lends itself to applying a 2001 law, which refers to the protection and rights of people with mental disorders.
According to legislation, these people comply with security measures after committing a crime, and cannot be admitted to nursing homes.
At the time of publication of the resolution, Brazil had 32 judicial asylums, which are known as Psychiatric Custody and Treatment Hospitals (HCTP). The units housed a prison population of 4,700 people, according to the Information System of the National Penitentiary Department (Sindespen).
For decades, the debate over whether or not to close judicial asylums has divided experts on the subject. On the one hand, it is argued that the units do not promote an adequate policy of social reintegration, since the majority of them are described as as unhealthy and precarious places.
On the other hand, critics of the closure point out that the transfer of patients to CAPs could put other patients who are treated for various diseases in the SUS at risk.
