Brazil Congress Debates and Rejects Equating Criminal Gangs with Terrorist Organizations

An amendment presented by Senator Eduardo Girão proposes that armed criminal organizations, ultra-violent factions, and private militias that exercise territorial control, collective intimidation, attacks against the state, essential services, or the civilian population should, for purposes of investigation, criminal prosecution, and sentence enforcement, be subjected to the same legal regime applied to terrorism crimes under Brazil’s Anti-Terrorism Law, Law No. 13,260, of March 16, 2016, where applicable.

The text seeks to extend anti-terrorism legal treatment to groups that operate with coercion and violence in areas under their control. According to the proposal, the measure would apply to organizations that use armed force to dominate territory, intimidate communities, disrupt public services, or carry out attacks against public authorities and civilians. The amendment argues that these structures should face procedures and penalties similar to those reserved for terrorism cases.

The initiative reflects a tougher approach to organized crime and illegal armed groups in Brazil, especially in contexts where such groups impose their own rules on residents and challenge state authority. By aligning these offenses with the terrorism framework, the proposal would potentially strengthen investigative tools, increase the severity of legal consequences, and reinforce the state’s response to criminal control over neighborhoods, municipalities, and strategic areas.

The amendment specifically mentions three categories: armed criminal organizations, ultra-violent factions, and private militias. It also highlights conduct that is considered especially serious, including territorial domination, collective intimidation, attacks against the state, attacks on essential services, and violence against the civilian population. The wording suggests that the legal focus is not only on the existence of these groups, but on the methods they use and the social harm they cause.

If approved, the measure could influence how prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement agencies handle cases involving these groups. It would place them within a legal model associated with terrorism investigations and punishment, potentially affecting arrest procedures, evidence collection, pretrial measures, and sentence execution. Supporters of the proposal are likely to view it as a way to increase state power against highly organized armed networks. Critics may question whether the terrorism framework is the appropriate legal instrument for addressing organized crime and militias.

The proposal is part of a broader debate in Brazil over how to classify and punish organized criminal violence that goes beyond ordinary street crime. In many areas, armed groups do not merely commit isolated offenses; they establish control over territory, extort residents, interfere with transportation and commerce, and undermine public security and essential services. Girão’s amendment aims to respond to that reality by giving authorities a stronger legal basis for action.

The measure does not redefine these groups as terrorism in a broad political sense, but rather proposes that they be treated under the same legal regime for investigative, prosecutorial, and penal purposes, to the extent applicable under existing law. That distinction is central to the text, which ties the proposal directly to Brazil’s current anti-terrorism legislation.

As presented, the amendment signals a legislative effort to harden the state’s response to violent criminal factions and militias, seeking to close what its authors may see as gaps between conventional organized-crime law and the scale of territorial violence these groups exercise.