WHO MATTERS AS A JUDGE? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF GENDER AND DECISIONS IN THE BRAZILIAN POLITICAL AMNESTY COMMISSION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12818/P.0304-2340.2026v88p389Abstract
This article is based on the results of a qualitative empirical study that analyzed 152 decisions issued by members of the Political Amnesty Commission between 2013 and 2022 in cases in which women were the petitioners. The study found that there were no significant differences between men and women regarding the outcomes of the rulings or the recognition of gender-specific issues present in the cases analyzed. In light of this finding, the article seeks to address the following research question: What factors explain why gender diversity in the composition of the Political Amnesty Commission did not result in significant differences in the incorporation of a gender perspective into its rulings? To this end, a qualitative study is conducted, based on a literature review, drawing on studies of transitional justice, gender representation in institutional spaces, and gender literacy. It is argued that the mere presence of women in decision-making bodies, while relevant to strengthening democratic representation, is not sufficient to promote a break with androcentric legal rationalities. It is concluded that the abstract universalization of the law, the lack of gen der literacy, and the absence of trial protocols with an intersectional gender perspective are factors that hinder the recognition of women’s specific experiences, highlighting the need.
KEYWORDS: Gender. Transitional Justice. Political Amnesty Commission.
