Civil police officers from the Robbery and Theft of Cargo Division during Operation Containment. CC BY 3.0
Ashley Toledo | January 18, 2026
On October 28, 2025, a significant police operation took place in the working-class communities of Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This operation aimed to execute around 100 arrest warrants and resulted in a tragic toll of at least 121 deaths, including four police officers. These operations raise questions about the legality of targeting and managing crime in Brazil and raise debates about security and democracy in Brazil.
This blog examines that the October 28, 2025 “containment operation” in Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha is most likely unconstitutional and inconsistent with Brazil’s obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, because it violated CF/88 (Brazilian Constitution of 1988), guarantees of life, dignity, and public security, disregarded the safeguards established in ADPF 635, and reproduced a similar lethal, unaccountable policing condemned in Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil.
Background:
Brazil is the largest country in South America and one of the largest economies in the world. However, many of its major cities face significant levels of violent crime. For decades, Rio de Janeiro’s favelas have experienced numerous police raids aimed at fighting gang activity and drug trafficking. These operations are often called “containment” efforts, but they frequently lead to deaths and violent clashes between civilians and police. Critics argue that these actions unfairly target Afro-Brazilians and the poor, undermining Brazil’s democratic and constitutional principles.
The legality of this so-called “containment operation” has raised concerns under ADPF 635, a Brazilian Supreme Court decision on the guidelines for conducting police operations in the favelas, and poses challenges in light of Brazil’s commitments to the American Convention on Human Rights. Key articles in question include Article 4, which protects the right to life; Article 5, which ensures humane treatment; Article 8, which guarantees the right to a fair trial; and Article 25, which provides for judicial protection. The implications of this operation highlight ongoing issues surrounding law enforcement practices and human rights in Brazil.
The case quickly made international headlines, shocking viewers worldwide with images of bodies being dumped and left on the streets. These disturbing visuals sparked intense debate about whether the police action complied with constitutional and human-rights standards or crossed the line into an unlawful massacre. The case is also very similar to Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, where similar police conduct was declared incompatible with the constitution.
Constitutional Provisions:
Brazil is a democracy with a constitution that grants a clear separation of powers, universal rights, and universal suffrage for citizens. Under the 1988 Constitution of Brazil, Article 1, III and Article 5 (caput) and §1 guarantee fundamental rights and guarantee their immediate applicability, requiring that any police operation respect and uphold life and human dignity. Article 5 has been amended over time, but it has not been repealed. Article 144 further provides that public security is a duty of the state, aimed at protecting individuals and their rights, and that police forces must operate within their constitutionally defined competencies. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, pursuant to Article 129, exercises external control over police activity, including investigations into alleged abuses.
Public Security as a Fundamental Right:
According to Brazilian constitutional doctrine, public security is itself understood as a fundamental right: it is an essential requirement for the full exercise of citizenship, with racial and gender equality, freedom, peace, and the protection of the environment and life. Within this framework, the governor of Rio de Janeiro, Cláudio Castro, argues that he has a constitutional mandate to protect residents and combat organized crime. Castro has defended the “mega-operation” against the Comando Vermelho, one of the largest organized crime groups in Brazil, as legitimate, proportional, and compliant with the rules established in ADPF 635 (ADPF das Favelas) and with constitutional guidelines.
Case Law:
Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil concerns two police operations conducted in a Brazilian favela in 1994 and 1995. Between these two raids, the police killed 26 males, including several youths aged 14 to 17. Evidence including witness testimony and forensic reports, suggested that many of these deaths were extrajudicial executions. Police officers frequently justified the high number of fatalities in such operations by claiming that the targets had “resisted arrest.” This justification was common for the high levels of police lethality frequently seen in raids.
The families of the victims sought redress through Brazil’s courts. However, investigations proceeded slowly and were conducted negligently, as evidenced by failures and omissions, which resulted in impunity for the crimes.
The two similar police raids in Favela Nova Brasilia were brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after non-governmental organizations, including Cejil and Human Rights Watch Americas, filed petitions. The Commission deemed both cases admissible and, in 2011, issued a merits report that combined them, characterizing the events as a pattern of police violence. Ultimately, the Commission held Brazil responsible for the vicious killing of 26 victims, sexual violence committed against three girls, violations of due process and judicial protection for the victims’ families, and breaching its obligations under both the American Convention and the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
In 2017, the courts issued their judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. This was the first case the Court ever decided on excessive police force in Rio’s favelas. The Court held that Brazil violated multiple rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights, including: the Right to Life (Art. 4(1)), the Right to Humane Treatment/Prohibition of Torture (Art. 5(1)-(2)), the Rights of the Child (Art. 19), the Right to Privacy, Honor, Dignity (Art. 11), Fair Trial & Judicial Protection (Arts. 8(1) and 25), and Obligations of Non-discrimination (Art. 1(1)).
The Court ordered Brazil to implement several key reparations, which include both individual and structural measures. These measures involve investigating, prosecuting, and penalizing those responsible, as well as providing compensation and rehabilitation. Additionally, there should be public acknowledgment and reforms in policy.
ADPF:
In Brazil, an ADPF is an Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental, in English it would be called an allegation of Noncompliance with a Fundamental Precept.” It’s a constitutional lawsuit filed directly at the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to stop or remedy actions or omissions by public authorities that violate fundamental constitutional rights.
A medida cautelar is a temporary (provisional) decision made by a judge, at the request of one of the parties, intending to prevent harm, preserve, protect, or ensure effective enforcement of a right. The initial ADPF 635 medida cautelar temporarily halted all operations during the COVID pandemic, except in absolutely exceptional cases, justified in writing, and reported to the prosecutor’s office. It also mandated additional safeguards for residents and health services.
This temporary measure was later developed into the current, permanent ADPF 635 framework. This framework establishes the standing rules that dictate how the Rio police must plan, execute, record, and investigate operations, such as the raid in October 2025.
In a legal context, Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil sets the framework for how these operations are conducted and then later investigated. The American Convention on Human Rights and the Torture Convention state that a large-scale, lethal raid with inadequate investigations is a violation. The framework created by this case also highlights the duty to investigate and demands structural change by highlighting arguments that the ADPF 635 requires Brazil to adopt policies to reduce police lethality.
Current Standing:
With respect to the operation on October 28, 2025, the Rio State Public Prosecutor’s Office filed new criminal complaints against the military police officers involved. Prosecutors have charged the officers with crimes such as theft of seized property, robbery, and violation of domicile. The evidence for these charges is primarily based on body camera footage from the raid.
Additionally, prosecutors have highlighted procedural irregularities, such as officers turning off their body cameras at key moments. Both the prosecutors and Human Rights Watch have noted serious investigative failures following the raid, including the failure to preserve crime scenes or call in forensic teams.
Public opinion on the operation is sharply divided. While human-rights groups and many residents denounce the scale of the violence, some citizens support the operation, accepting the official narrative that most of those killed were criminals or gang members. Supporters argue that the containment operation could deter crime and make Rio a safer city overall. A recent AtlasIntel poll reportedly found majority approval for the operation both in Brazil (55%) and Rio (62%).
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has sharply criticized the operation, describing it as a “killing spree,” and has publicly distanced himself from the way it was conducted. While emphasizing the need to combat crime, Lula has simultaneously vowed to thoroughly investigate the incident.
As of December 2025, there has not yet been an official ruling on the constitutionality of the operation. However, investigations are ongoing, and some police officers have been arrested after body-camera footage allegedly showed them committing crimes, raising further questions about proportionality, accountability, and the state’s compliance with both its constitutional and inter-American human-rights obligations. Because the investigation is still unfolding and body-camera footage has already prompted arrests, this operation remains a live test of whether Rio can ensure proportionality and real accountability for violators of the law, even if they are law enforcement officers.