The recurrence of certain factors that judges relied on to credit the victim’s account was observed, such as clarity, coherence, firmness, absence of confabulation, and the use by children of specific terms such as “buttocks” and “wee-wee”:

Although surrounded by feelings and symptoms resulting from the violence, the adolescent’s account is coherent and clearly narrates the occurrence of repeated episodes of sexual abuse. During the evaluative process, it was not possible to perceive any secondary motivations that could suggest confabulation or uncertainty regarding the narrated facts. Thus, the data collected during the assessment indicate the occurrence of chronic and prolonged intrafamilial sexual abuse, since the time when K. was still a child. [...] The psychologist responsible for the special testimony informed on page 169 that she did not perceive “any secondary motivations that could suggest confabulation or uncertainty regarding the narrated facts.

However, in a firm counterpoint, the victim herself, heard in a special testimony, pointed to the accused as the perpetrator of the serious acts described in the complaint. L.S.F., even at such a young age, confirmed to psychologist L.F.F. that Wanderson was in prison because he had beaten her mother and because he had put his hand on her “buttocks and wee-wee” (page 74).

In general, the magistrate seeks the victim’s truth by aligning the child’s ST with other information, such as the child’s statement at the time of the accusation, the testimony of witnesses, and even some parts of the defendant’s account, as well as the firmness in their speech and the words uttered. It is important to remember that in this practice, the child occupies two positions: that of a victim and of a witness (Coimbra, 2014), making the supposed extraction of truth from their words even more complex. This author further adds that: “Testimony is not simply what recovers the past, but also what, to some extent, establishes it, an attempt to make sense when often that would not commonly be possible” (Coimbra, 2014, p. 317).

Obtaining this account is complex, and for this purpose, protocols that attempt to minimize biases and reduce harm to the child are recommended. Van der Kolk and Van der Hart (1995) suggest that inferences about traumatic events, such as the cases of violence in question, can only be made a posteriori. This is because some experiences are so traumatic that they do not find existing mental structures to integrate into, resulting in a fragmented and dissociated return. From this, we can ask whether protocols in ST could impact this elaboration of what happened, given the urgency in attempting to evoke memories and emotions for judicial purposes. With the pursuit of a presumed objectivity in conducting ST, there is a risk of fitting plural experiences into a standardized mold.

When including a protocol in the psychological field, attention must be paid to its potential for standardization. Individuals feel and experience things differently, and this uniqueness should be noticed and respected in the judicial system. In the practice of ST, there is a predominant interest in optimizing and standardizing the method of questioning children and adults, described by Pereira (2016) as the search for supposedly error-free and easily applicable instruments that, in turn, create a situation where extreme responsibility is placed upon the child.

The consistency in the victim’s account was a crucial factor in the sentences rendered. Inconsistency, however, was sometimes perceived as a source of doubt, while, at other times, it was viewed as a natural confusion on the part of the child:

Right. Although the victim’s testimony appears secure in pointing out the existence of lewd acts perpetrated by the defendant, it must be recognized that the manner in which these events occurred was not adequately outlined. Indeed, while it is understandable not to demand a detailed description of factual events from a child, it is noted, firstly, that this court is not confident regarding the existence of any kind of penetration of the offender’s sexual organ, nor of conduct that aligns with typical sexual acts such as carnal knowledge, anal or oral intercourse, or anything of the sort.

Nor would it be plausible for the child, still lacking sexual vocabulary, to reproduce such significant facts with a wealth of details. The timid and hesitant posture adopted by the victim during her testimony with the social worker (p. 140) does not undermine the credibility of her accounts. It should be considered that the notable embarrassment expressed in court may stem from a reaction to such a vile occurrence.

Silence becomes an object of investigation in the pursuit for its meaning. Laub (1995) observed that some Holocaust survivors only managed to speak about the events 40 years later, and the imperative to speak is intertwined with the impossibility of expression, causing silence to often prevail over the truth. Some individuals go as far as reporting that, even when they could articulate something, it was still but a fragment compared to the totality of the facts. If for an adult the account of the events is still so obscure and challenging to access, for a child, still in the process of development, to speak clearly about a traumatic event without doubts or hesitations or to have their speech seemingly coherent as truth is significantly elusive.

The law strives to uncover an objective truth to render its verdict; however, in doing so, it extends beyond the boundaries of its subject matter and delves into intrapsychic issues. As pointed out by Mendes et al. (2021), intrapsychic phenomena are complex, and when appropriated by the judiciary, they can result in a reductionist and decontextualized practice. Sampaio (2017) questions whether there will be room for a psychology that does not tend to imprison the subject in fragmentations of the psychological totality and epistemological reduction since “[...] psychology must point to what is essentially human: history, movement, transformation” (Sampaio, 2017, p. 51).

The interface between heterogeneous subjects should not be treated simplistically. Oliveira (2020) emphasized that the collaboration between psychology and law does not take on a static form, lacking a fixed essence. The author suggests the perspective of an “interferential field” (Oliveira, 2020, p. 207), which enables a “play on differentiation, that is, permanent variation that prevents both homogenization and subjection of one knowledge to another”. Therefore, it is about not finding an exact and procedural measure to reconcile knowledge but integrating it in a way to position and reposition differences.

Another point that requires attention is that in three sentences the judge mentions that the defendant was removed from the hearing at the request of the victim. The request was made due to the victims mentioning that they would feel fearful and embarrassed to testify in front of the defendant. Despite ST presenting itself as an alternative to this encounter, it is noted that there is still embarrassment for the victims. Moreover, it is observed that this exposure is not limited to the courts. The media, for example, has influenced how individuals understand violence. In one of the sentences, a soap opera scene is used to depict the mother’s position regarding her partner - the defendant in the case - and her daughter, the victim:

On another note, as insightfully pointed out by the Prosecutor, the position adopted by the victim’s mother in fervently defending the accused did not go unnoticed by the incautious psychologist, a typical stance in cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by parents or stepfathers, currently portrayed in the prime-time soap opera on Rede Globo – ‘O Outro Lado do Paraíso’ (The Other Side of Paradise), in which the character Lorena does not believe in the accusation made by Laura, who was molested in childhood by her stepfather, Police Chief Vinícius.

It is worth noting that the judge’s assertion lacks a scientific foundation, as it is based solely on the portrayal of such an experience by characters in a soap opera. Sousa (2017) investigated judicial cases with significant media coverage and observed that there has been a focus on the victim, on the avoidant components of the crime, eliciting harsher penalties and denouncing lenient legislation. These media and social repercussions also reach the national congress, influencing the drafting of laws and impacting judicial decisions.

This upheaval mirrors the impending erosion of the foundation and stability of society, which the judiciary dreads. Confronted with a perceived threat, the legal system fears falling short in its accountability to society (Felman, 2014). In attempting to make sense and reduce the threat through decisions, there is a risk that the verdict itself becomes traumatic, as it denies the “trauma that was supposed to be remedied by the judgment” (Felman, 2014, p. 115), and thus does not propose effective protection for the victims.

In view of the above, it is argued that various moments in the judicial process can be considered to represent traumatic spaces, and the traumatic situation does not end with the testimony or the verdict, highlighting the importance of commenting on follow-up/referral procedures.

Regarding the referral procedures stemming from the practice of ST, one point reiterated in the literature is the lack of information about such a procedure (Ramos, 2015). While some protocols, recommendations, and resolutions envision support for those involved in the case, there is no uniformity regarding referral procedures and practices (Santos & Coimbra, 2017). From the perspective of psychology, referral would be one of the fundamental aspects of ST, given that the repercussions of the accusation do not end with the verdict. As highlighted by Ramos (2015), both the traditional method and ST:

[...] need discussion not only about the method itself but also about the care provided to the child, the accused, and the family in the aftermath of their statements and sentencing. This moment is as or even more important than the moment of the DSD4/ST.

For this, it becomes important to coordinate with existing devices. As emphasized by Coimbra (2014, p. 369): “It is not something that, once agreed upon, would remain functional forever. This system requires periodic adjustments and presupposes, consequently, some degree of proximity and coordination among the actors involved”.

Thus, when reflecting on the role of psychology and potential child protection, following the enactment of the new legislation, Specialized Listening is provided as a procedure associated with Special Testimony: “For the purposes of this Law, the child and the adolescent will be heard about the situation of violence through specialized listening and special testimony” (Presidência da República, 2017, Art. 4º, V, § 1º). Britto et al. (2019) observe that the term Special Testimony appears more frequently than the term Specialized Listening in legislation and associate this discrepancy with the emphasis given to the former term. This prevalence in the text reflects the secondary status assigned to Specialized Listening, as defined in Law No. 13,431 − an interview limited to what is deemed necessary for its purpose within the framework of the protection network (Presidência da República, 2017). This fact becomes relevant because Specialized Listening aims at support (Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2018) and not at judicial inquiry or truth-seeking.

Specialized Listening becomes even more important when we approach speech as pivotal in the path to protection. Laub (1995), through his work interviewing Holocaust survivors, reports that “The survivors did not only need to survive so that they could tell their stories; they also needed to tell their stories in order to survive” (Laub, 1995, p. 63). This symbolization is necessary to integrate the experience of the traumatic event into the individual’s way of life, enabling other ways of expressing this struggle (Laub, 1995).

Moreover, it is not the child’s responsibility to be clear and define the issue, as violence is commonly an entanglement of meanings constructed a posteriori. Listening makes this symbolization possible, and we agree with Ramos (2015, p. 153) in his inquiries: “does ST apply to all cases of alleged sexual violence against children? And, if so, will it be conducted in a standardized way? In what situations should we act differently?”.

The tasks of the judiciary involve interdisciplinary practices since “judgment involves something larger than the law” (Felman, 2014, p. 100). In this regard, it is worth noting how magistrates consider the role of psychology in Specialized Testimony:

In this case, the hearing was conducted with the assistance of a professional in the field of psychology, which alone qualifies her for the performance of the impugned act [author’s emphasis] and, although it is recognized that the procedure was not carried out in strict compliance with what Law 13,431/17 dictates, it was done as closely as possible to ensure both the minimization of harm to the minor and the accused’s right to adversarial proceedings.

Despite the apparent prestige, what is observed are fragmented uses of knowledge in interdisciplinary relationships, without the development of joint work with equitable contributions. Considering the demands of the judiciary, it is worth reflecting on how the work of psychology can find a space for critical practices within the institution.

Santos and Coimbra (2017) pointed to other roles that psychology can take in this practice, such as emotional support, accompanying those involved, and evaluating the child’s conditions to undergo ST. We must remember Psychology’s commitment, which is to subjective truth, and it should be attentive to the limits of its practice, weighing the boundaries and objectives of its actions, as its considerations may attain the status of truth.