Access to justice for the vulnerable through the public defender´s office: the perspective of using IRDR
ACCESS – JUSTICE – PUBLIC DEFENDER – PRECEDENT - IRDR
The thesis aims to portray the state of the art of the public defense office regarding the direct proposition of the Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands - IRDR. The problem that this research sought to answer was whether the public defender´s office uses the IRDR in order to fulfill the interests of its clients. Although it is a new institute introduced in the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, the construction of the IRDR occurs through the discussion of possible theses to be established with an eminently local character, collaborating in the formulation of a binding decision that deals with a situation analyzed through the perspective of those before whom it may be applied. Thus, seeking to address this instrument and how it is currently used by the public defender's office, a study was carried out on the historical digression that formed it, which culminated in the constitutional recognition of its importance, an important factor of legitimacy when seeking to construct a binding decision. To this end, this research adopts a qualitative method that seeks to interpret the reality of the public defense combined with the quantitative method, considering that data collection is carried out to conduct the stages of the process. Therefore, in view of the analysis of the IRDR as a precedent with force in local courts for the defense of those assisted/target audience of the institution, the use of the IRDR was outlined as an instrument for access to justice. In this sense, through the data obtained from the research, we sought to assess what would be the possible justifications that contribute to the little offer of the debate of theses through the aforementioned incident. With this, we proposed discussing structural problems of the public defender's office, presenting examples of expansion of the initial service of the defender's offices in some states, as well as presenting proposals for improvements in order to improve access to justice that would culminate, directly or not, in an increase in the proposal of IRDR.