Constitutional principles of disciplinary law in Brazil and their equivalents in the American Convention on Human Rights

Translated from the original.

In an article in the Revista de Derecho Administrativo, I present the historical panorama of Disciplinary Law and analyze the constitutional foundations that guide legal relationships in Brazil.

I highlight the intersection between Administrative Sanctioning Law and constitutional guarantees, drawing parallels with decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

I show how international case law can guide the application of these principles in our domestic law.

And I offer an in-depth reflection on the constitutional principles that govern Brazilian Law — legality, typicity, proportionality, reasonableness, and presumption of innocence.

To illustrate, I cite paradigmatic cases decided in the inter-American sphere, such as Zambrano Vélez v. Ecuador, López Lone v. Honduras, Lori Berenson v. Peru, and Cuscul Pivaral v. Guatemala.

These precedents show violations resulting from a lack of proportionality.

In addition to criticizing vague rules that compromise legal certainty and reinforce the need to balance the State's sanctioning power — protecting fundamental rights and avoiding arbitrariness.

I invite those in the legal field to reflect on this topic. The full text of the article is available at this link .