A do (Superior Court of Justice) decided, this Wednesday (April 8, 2026), that former soldier Kelvin Barros da Silva should be by the Jury Court for the crimes of feminicide and destruction of a corpse in the case of the death of Corporal Maria de Lourdes Freire Matos, murdered inside an Army barracks in Brasília.
In the same judgment, the collegiate determined that crimes linked to assets and military administration remain under the jurisdiction of the .
By majority, the ministers understood that it would not be possible to concentrate the analysis of all the facts in a single jurisdiction, because the case brings together distinct legal interests and constitutional powers typical of the common Justice and the Military Justice. The conflict of jurisdiction was reported by Minister Ribeiro Dantas.
According to the STJ, the panel concluded that the intentional crime against life attributed to the former soldier had been committed for personal motivation and in an alleged context of gender-based violence, with no direct link to the military function or institutional interests of the Armed Forces. Therefore, the understanding prevailed that the feminicide trial is a matter for the popular jury. Read the (PDF – 19 kB).
According to the complaint, Kelvin and Maria were active military personnel at the time of the events. THE states that he killed the corporal with a knife blow to the neck, inside the military unit’s music band room and then set fire to the place, which caused the body to char. The prosecution also maintains that he stole the victim’s service weapon and carried out acts to alter the crime scene. The former soldier was arrested in the act hours later.
HOW MINISTERS VOTED
By 4 votes to 3, the STJ decided to split the case. Read how each minister voted:
- Ribeiro Dantas: voted to send the crimes of feminicide and destruction of a corpse to the Jury Court;
- Sebastião Reis Júnior: accompanied the rapporteur;
- Rogério Schietti: accompanied the rapporteur;
- Marluce Caldas: accompanied the rapporteur;
- Carlos Pires Brandão: disagreed and voted for the jurisdiction of the Military Justice;
- Joel Ilan Paciornik: disagreed and voted for the jurisdiction of the Military Justice;
- Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca: disagreed and voted for the jurisdiction of the Military Justice.
WHAT STAYS WITH EACH JUSTICE
With the decision, the Brasília Jury Court will be responsible for analyzing the charges of feminicide and destruction of a corpse, while the STM (Superior Military Court) will continue with the crimes of damage to military property, fire, theft of a service weapon and possible procedural fraud linked to the change in the crime scene. The MPDFT reported that the decision was taken by 4 votes to 3.
In his vote, Ribeiro Dantas stated that the expansion of the concept of military crime promoted byis not absolute. According to the minister, when the crime is committed outside the context of service, without connection with the function and without relation to functional duty, it does not constitute a military crime, even if the fact occurred in a military dependency and involved active agents.
The rapporteur also said that the core of the accusation is not anchored in hierarchy, discipline or military interest, but in the suppression of the victim’s life in the context of gender violence. For the minister, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Jury Court cannot be emptied by an extensive interpretation of military jurisdiction.
UNDERSTAND THE CASE
The crime, according to the MPDFT, was committed on December 5, 2025, in the 1st Guards Cavalry Regiment, in the Urban Military Sector, in Brasília. In January of this year, the Brasília Jury Court received the complaint and made Kelvin a defendant for the crimes of feminicide and destruction of a corpse. Afterwards, the STM raised a conflict of jurisdiction in the STJ, on the grounds that the case should be treated as a military crime.
In the indictment, the Public Ministry says that the murder was classified as feminicide because it involved contempt and discrimination against the condition of women. He also pointed out the reason for increasing the sentence on the grounds that the crime was carried out in a cruel manner and without the victim’s chance of defending himself.
When analyzing the conflict, the 3rd Section of the STJ decided that the coexistence of different constitutional powers requires the dismemberment of the process. The collegiate cited rules from the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Military Criminal Procedure that prohibit joint trials when there is a competition between common and military jurisdiction. For the Court, the split does not violate the principle of no until in idem —which prohibits someone from being punished or tried twice for the same act— because it deals with different imputations, with different legal interests.
