A recent ruling by the Union Military Justice (JMU) has found an Air Force cable guilty of contempt toward a superior officer. The conviction stems from an incident in June 2024 where the cable referred to a lieutenant as Bunituda. This decision underscores the critically important implications of gender issues within the military.

The case, analyzed using the National Council of Justice’s (CNJ) gender perspective judgment protocol, centered on inappropriate and sexually suggestive comments directed at a second lieutenant in the Air Force.

The Complaint

According to the Military Public Prosecution Service (MPM), Cabo Expedito Ferreira Neto was charged with disrespecting the lieutenant on two separate occasions.

• March 6, 2024: During an institutional event, Cabo expedito, who was working as a driver, allegedly showered the lieutenant with unwanted praise, calling her gorgeous, the most friendly lieutenant, and more beautiful, even after she asked him to stop and informed him that she was engaged and felt embarrassed. Another officer corroborated the lieutenant’s account of feeling uncomfortable.
• June 5, 2024: The lieutenant contacted Cabo Expedito for vaccine transportation, a routine procedure due to the transportation sector’s phone being out of service. During the ride,the cable reportedly made suggestive remarks,inviting her to run away with him.

After the lieutenant firmly declined his advances, he allegedly made a sexually charged comment: Ah Lieutenant, what a pity that his heart already has a owner. Upon arriving at their destination, he added that their daughter would be beautiful, because she is a butt and he is also a butt and was a bundudinha daughter, leaving the lieutenant terrified.

Following the incident, Lieutenant Lira reported the matter to her superior, who advised her to formalize the complaint.

The Defense and Court’s Analysis

Cabo Expedito’s defense argued that his comments were merely courtesy words between co -workers, without evil or intention to embarrass, and that they did not constitute a serious offense to the dignity or authority of the superior officer.

The defense further claimed a lack of specific intent and requested acquittal or, alternatively, a lesser charge of disrespect to a superior (Article 160 of the CPM). The cable denied making the most offensive comments, such as the escape proposal or the references to Bunduda and Bundudinha.

however, the court rejected the defense thesis. The ruling emphasized that the crime of contempt to a superior (Article 298 of the CPM) is designed to protect the authority, dignity, and decorum of the hierarchical superior, which are fundamental to military hierarchy and discipline.

The Verdict

the court steadfast that the expressions used by the defendant overflow the field of a simple compliment. The use of terms such as butt and the invitation to escape were classified as absolutely incompatible with the decorum, authority and honor of the official, configuring contempt.

The court viewed the defendant’s behavior as creating a hostile environment for the victim, escalating into sexual propositions, incringing your dignity in the exercise of the function. The defendant’s justification for his comments was deemed inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence.

The initial sentence was set at the legal minimum of one year of imprisonment, converted into prison. A conditional suspension of the execution of the penalty (Sousis) for a period of 3 (three) years was granted, with specific conditions:

• Prohibition of face-to-face or virtual contact with the offended party.
• Maintenance of a minimum distance of 300 meters.
• Prohibition from performing service in conjunction with her.
• Quarterly presentation in court.

The initial prison regime was set as open, contingent on compliance with the conditions of the suspension. The cable retains the right to appeal the decision while remaining free.