The equating of Crimes By the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF): Between the Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Limits of the Principle of Criminal Legality

Abstract

This article analyzes the role of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) in equating certain conducts to the crime of racism, particularly in the judgments of ADO 26, MI 4.733, and HC 154248, which recognized homophobia, transphobia, and racial insult as forms of racism. The research problem consists of understanding whether the expansion of criminal effects through judicial interpretation constitutes a legitimate instrument for the protection of fundamental rights or whether it exceeds the limits imposed by the principle of criminal legality and the legal reservation principle. The general objective is to critically analyze the STF's decisions that equated certain conducts to the crime of racism, evaluating their impacts on the principle of criminal legality and the separation of powers. The methodology adopted is qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive in nature, using the deductive method, bibliographic and documentary research, and the analysis of legal doctrine, legislation, and STF judicial precedents. The results indicate that, although the Court's decisions contribute to the protection of historically discriminated minorities and to the realization of fundamental rights, they also raise debates concerning judicial activism, the separation of powers, and the limits of constitutional interpretation in criminal matters. It is concluded that judicial action must seek a balance between the protection of human dignity and the preservation of the fundamental guarantees of the criminal justice system, especially strict legality and legal certainty.