Conciliation in the expedited procedure in cases of domestic violence

Abstract

This article analyzes the legal viability of conciliation in the expedited procedure in cases of domestic violence, based on the existing tension between the self-compositional logic of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the state's duty of enhanced protection of the victim. The research is based on the premise that criminal conciliation does not operate absolutely, but is rather conditioned by the negotiability of the conflict, the nature of the affected legal rights, and the compatibility of the agreement with constitutional guarantees. From a qualitative approach, through bibliographic review and the application of the dogmatic-legal method, constitutional norms, provisions of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, jurisprudential criteria of the National Court of Justice, and specialized doctrine are examined. The study argues that domestic violence cannot be treated as a private dispute available for settlement, because it compromises the physical, psychological, moral, and sexual integrity of the victim, as well as their dignity, security, and right to a life free of violence, impacts that are perpetuated in cycles of subordination and dependence. It concludes that the exclusion of conciliation in these cases does not constitute an arbitrary restriction, but rather a guarantee aimed at preventing revictimization, ensuring comprehensive reparation, which includes restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition, and, therefore, strengthening the state response to relationships marked by material inequality.