Over 12,000 Protective Orders Issued in São Paulo Interior Cities in 2.5 Years
In the interior of São Paulo, over 12,720 judicial protective measures were granted across 26 judicial districts serving 42 cities between January 2024 and June 2026. These orders, established by the Maria da Penha Law (Law No. 11.340/2006), are designed to safeguard individuals, primarily victims of domestic violence, from further harm. A judge can mandate that an aggressor maintain a minimum distance, cease contact through various communication channels, vacate a shared residence, or avoid specific locations. Araraquara led in granting these protections, with 2,143 orders issued, accounting for 16.8% of the regional total. São Carlos followed with 1,858 measures (14.6%), and Rio Claro issued 1,139 (8.9%). Conversely, Conchal and São Sebastião da Grama issued the fewest, with 109 each, representing only 1.71% of the total. This data reflects granted measures, not necessarily the number of requests made, some of which may have been denied. The investigation was conducted by g1 in collaboration with the São Paulo State Court of Justice (TJ-SP).
This report highlights a significant volume of judicial protective orders issued in São Paulo's interior cities, indicating a substantial need for such legal recourse. The data underscores the prevalence of situations requiring state intervention to prevent domestic violence, as evidenced by the high number of orders granted. The disparity in the number of measures granted across different municipalities suggests potential variations in judicial processing, resource allocation, or reporting practices. It is crucial to analyze the systemic factors influencing these differences to ensure equitable access to justice and protection for all citizens. Furthermore, the report implicitly raises questions about the effectiveness of these measures in deterring repeat offenses and the support systems available to victims beyond the initial judicial order, especially in the context of evolving digital communication and potential for psychological or vicarious violence.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.
