Public Note #11 – Preventing violence by the private security sector

The Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns Commission for the Defense of Human Rights – the Arns Commission – founded on February 20, 2019, whose mission is to carry out the defense and promotion of the human rights of society in general, goes public to express its opinion on the prevention of violence by the private security sector.

The rise in violence by private security

Countless cases of violence committed by members of private security teams have been detected by the press. These criminal acts were committed by agents in charge of security in supermarkets – in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro –, in shopping malls, in gated communities, in areas controlled by public transportation companies (such as subway and train companies), in private events, hospitals, pharmacies, bakeries, restaurants, nightclubs, bars, clubs, cafeterias, and in commercial stores and gas stations. Such cases of violence include assaults, serious bodily injuries, torture, false imprisonment, disclosure of nudity of clients forced to undress for illegal searches, and even homicides.

Although the crimes were committed by "security guards", who are often outsourced, one must not fail to recognize the civil liability of the legal entities or individuals, who hold power in these spaces used for criminal conduct, and in some cases, the criminal liability itself, for the reparation and consequences of these criminal acts.

1. Corporate social responsibility

Security is a fundamental human right, just as life, freedom, and equality. In Brazil, public security is a State’s duty, but also a right and responsibility of all, under the terms of Article 144 of the Federal Constitution. In other words, the State has a duty to protect, but everyone, especially companies, have the duty to respect and remedy, in the event of non-compliance with those rights. This is corporate social responsibility.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), precisely in line with this “protect, respect, remedy” framework.

Guiding Principle 11 requires companies to: (i) not violate human rights and (ii) address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.

Thus, regardless of all the governmental and non-governmental public policies that the business and human rights relationship might evoke and bring about to everyday reality, preventive actions are truly fundamental to preserve the rights of everyone, including those who transit through the common places where these repeated and serious violations of rights have been occurring.

Legal framework for private security under debate

Even though the private security issue in Brazil is strongly related to human rights violations and abuse of power, it has not yet achieved the space it deserves in the broad public debate. According to the discussion between institutions working closely on this theme, such as the Federal Police, trade unions, organizations of categories of workers and entrepreneurs in the sector, as well as scholars, there is still much to be done.

There is a wide consensus and everyone agrees that the legal framework is outdated, and consequently, the control over legal companies themselves is outdated as well, especially the clandestine ones and the militias, which are the Achilles’ heel of this sector in Brazil.

There is a new legal framework under debate in the Senate, the SCD (“Substitute of the Chamber of Deputies” – Substitutivo da Câmara dos Deputados, in Portuguese) No. 6/16, with the Rapporteurship of Senator Randolfe Rodrigues, without urgency nature.

In order to promote this debate, the Arns Commission compiled the history of recent violations and analyzed the area’s regulatory framework, providing data on the market and its relationship with human rights violations; and the core discussion points that justify the urgency of actions to defend human rights that are related to private security policies. These data comprise the Arns Commission Dossier on Private Security (Dossiê Comissão Arns sobre Segurança Privada, in Portuguese).

Opinion on the substitute under discussion in the Senate

The substitute entitled Private Security and Security of Financial Institutions Statute (Estatuto da Segurança Privada e da Segurança das Instituições Financeiras, in Portuguese) – which was already approved by the Chamber of Deputies based on the Substitute of the Chamber of Deputies – is a well-structured document, composed of twelve chapters and 75 articles. Its objectives are to discipline private security and the security of financial institutions; regulate the profession of security guards; establish security rules for financial institutions and their counterparts; and establish ATM safety rules.

During the period of processing the Statute in the Senate, which was distributed to Senator Randolfe Rodrigues in February 2019, amendments and public manifestations have been added both from institutions representing security guards, employees of cash-in-transit (CIT) companies, firefighters, and persons with disabilities, as well as institutions representatives of private security and cash-in-transit companies. The first question is whether the Statute should be approved without amendments by the Senate, as some senators want so that the matter does not return to the Chamber of Deputies.

The Arns Commission understands that, among the amendments, there are substantial improvements in the Statute that the Senate must evaluate.

There are, for example, amendments that

• require that individuals who are hired to carry out private surveillance tasks must be duly registered and meet the requirements of companies;
• create space for cooperatives – which is the way of functioning of hundreds of institutions – to be authorized for the exercise of private security activities;
• remove the ban on financial companies themselves carrying out private security services;
• remove the services provided by CIT companies from the definition of “essential work”;
• eliminate the requirement for at least one security guard with a firearms license in financial institutions

We understand that these amendments are relevant enough to be properly evaluated by the Senate.

The draft bill, however, does not address the issue regarding the human rights involved in private security, except indirectly by regulating private surveillance companies and the training of security guards. In cases of violence practiced by security guards, there is no definition of the civil liability of the managers of private security companies or of directors of contracting companies, based on the assumption that the ordinary legislation should deal with this issue.

An urgent call

The Arns Commission, by participating in joint efforts with socially responsible institutions and companies to prevent human rights violations such as those mentioned above, and at the same time, by releasing its dossier on private security violence, on the eve of end-of-year celebrations, promotes a public call, recommending:

• companies to review their codes of conduct and contracts with outsourced security companies, in order to align their security procedures, their training standards for their employees and collaborators, how they deal with customers, and their guidelines in emergency cases to the best practices of respect for fundamental rights, repelling the use of violence and repudiating forms of discrimination, especially those related to race, gender, and sexual orientation. We also suggest that companies must disclose their adopted measures, especially those related to good practices that, at the same time, prevent conflicts, guarantee property/asset security, and respect the rights of citizens.
• citizens that, as of today, when visiting public places or where there is a presence of private security, must not fail to be alert to violations of the rights to security, freedom, and equality; and that they can report situations of embarrassment for themselves and others, by triggering existing complaint mechanisms.

Hence, we shall be able to start a new moment of compliance with and fulfillment of rights and duties, which is everyone's responsibility.

This is our manifestation.