HOW MANY FILMED CRIMES DO WE NEED TO SEE BEFORE WE ADMIT THAT INSTITUTIONS FAILED?
A nineteen-year-old boy entered a fire station in Fundão for the first time. I wanted to save lives. Eleven colleagues raped him and filmed everything. The barracks’ surveillance cameras recorded both attacks.
In the same week, ten soldiers from the GNR and one from the PSP set up companies to exploit hundreds of migrants. They charged for accommodation, food, and armed guards. They trafficked human beings with the Republic badge on their chest.
The response from justice and institutions? Prohibition of approaching five hundred meters. Three-month suspensions. In a small town, five hundred meters is not distance — it is an illusion of protection. And three months? A break before returning.
Cases separated by kilometers and circumstances, but united by the same abyss: that of violence that explodes where there should be protection, and that of the institutional response that arrives late, weak and insufficient.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH INACTION
We are not here to dispute the presumption of innocence — it is unavoidable in criminal proceedings. But it’s time to clarify something that we systematically confuse: presumption of innocence does not justify institutional inaction.
The coercive measures decided by the court serve to guard against procedural risks — danger of escape, of criminal repetition, of disruption of the investigation.
Internal disciplinary measures, such as preventive suspension from office, serve to protect the victim, the institution and public trust. They are distinct and complementary legal plans. Confusing them weakens both and leaves victims unprotected.
When the Fundão fire commander said “I don’t see any reason for suspensions”, he had videos of the attacks and records from the barracks’ cameras in his hands. With audiovisual evidence of violent sexual crimes, the decision not to immediately apply preventive suspension and initiate disciplinary proceedings goes against all principles of institutional and victim protection.
THE NUMBERS
This is not an isolated case. According to data from APAV, requests for help due to institutional or corporate violence have increased consistently in recent years. And when the aggressors are law enforcement agents — those who patrol, monitor, represent the State —, the risk assessment must be subject to increased scrutiny: they have access to means of coercion, the capacity for intimidation and internal networks that can disrupt investigations and witnesses.
The next victim sees all this. See that reporting may not be enough. Same with videos. Even with cameras. Even with dozens of testimonies. See that the separation can be short, the encounters inevitable, the daily fear.
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, NOT JUST INTENTIONS
And these solutions exist. No state can create instant trust, but a responsible state must create practical conditions for it to be restored.
This means: preventive suspension in cases with evidence (audiovisual, multiple consistent reports, preliminary expertise), with quarterly review, procedural safeguards and written justification. Objective: protect the victim and the investigation without transforming suspension into early sentencing.
Confidential, independent and auditable reporting channelswith effective protection against retaliation and sanctions for intentional omission. The pact of silence kills and must be held legally responsible.
How many saw it?
How many listened?
How many laughed at the videos shared on cell phones?
Aggravated criteria in coercive measures when the defendants are public agents: immediate functional removal, priority electronic surveillance, perimeters parameterized by the local geographic reality. Five hundred meters in a town where everyone crosses paths daily is not an effective measure — it is an abstract number in a court order.
Some municipalities and corporations have already developed rapid response protocols to situations of internal violence. When well implemented and monitored, they show that it is possible to create protection mechanisms that work on the ground, not just on paper.
INSTITUTIONAL SILENCE MUST END
These solutions become even more urgent when we recognize the pattern: these are not just “isolated cases” or “bad apples.” These are organizational cultures that protect aggressors, hierarchies that confuse loyalty with complicity, institutions that prioritize corporate reputation over victim protection.
The State also needs to invest in mandatory training on harassment, sexual violence and human trafficking, with an emphasis on legal and disciplinary duties. Because when we poorly distinguish between professional solidarity and criminal cover-up, we are creating the conditions for the next tragedy.
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
Tomorrow there is another boy entering another barracks. Another migrant arriving at another camp guarded by guards we paid. When the uniforms that were supposed to protect us betray us, we cannot file the outrage as an “isolated case”.
The nineteen-year-old boy does not return to the barracks. The eleven returned home. Five hundred meters is all that, legally, we can offer between them. In a small town, this means that you will pass each other in the cafe, in the supermarket, on the street. Every day.
It all begins and ends with responsibility. What institutions have when they protect those they should remove. What the State has when it chooses to invest in preventing instead of remedying tragedies. The legal instruments exist, the solutions are known. There is a lack of political will to implement them.
A society that protects victims and holds perpetrators accountable — even when they are in uniform — builds trust.
This is the possible horizon, if we choose to walk there.