LETTERS ROGATORY

1. Define the object before selecting the procedure

Letters are outgoing when issued by a Brazilian authority for execution abroad and incoming when the foreign act must be performed in Brazil. Their usual function is ancillary to proceedings in another jurisdiction. That connection neither turns cooperation into adjudication of the case by the receiving authority nor excludes treaty requests for evidence intended for contemplated judicial proceedings. [2] [10]

Classification must address substance: service informs a person or brings them into proceedings; evidence gathering obtains material for adjudication; enforcement seeks to give effect to a decision. Including a judgment among the attachments does not, alone, make the request one for recognition, just as the absence of an order imposing liability does not establish that assistance can dispense with recognition review. The effect for which the requested state’s intervention is sought must be identified. [2] [16]

The table organises classification questions rather than automatic authorisations. Each row’s legal basis must be checked against the relationship between the states, treaty declarations and Brazilian jurisdiction. Carta precatória, used for domestic judicial cooperation, is not an alternative designation for international letters rogatory. [1] [2] [5] [10]

2. Prepare outgoing transmission

Where a treaty applies, the Brazilian authority must check its scope, its operation in relation to the requested state and the body designated for that particular convention. Establishing that both countries belong to an international organisation is insufficient. The Service Convention has the application mechanism in Article 28; under the Evidence Convention, accessions require consideration of acceptance under Article 39. Verification must cover the relevant relationship rather than merely a general list of participants. [5] [7] [10] [11]

MJSP Order No. 1.195/2026 governs direct outgoing transmission to the foreign Central Authority for requests under the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. Transmission is undertaken by the competent Brazilian authority and retains treaty formalities. The change does not indiscriminately cover bilateral treaties, criminal procedures or incoming requests, nor does it amount to unrestricted transmission from judge to judge. [8] [9]

Article 2 requires registration of the information with the Brazilian Central Authority before dispatch and its updating after the response, subject to the exception for extrajudicial notification in § 5. The DRCI page updated on 9 October 2026 instructs simultaneous, separate electronic communication for institutional registration. The written obligation and administrative guidance must be identified as such, without attributing power to amend the order to the webpage. [8] [9]

Where no treaty instrument applies, reciprocity and the diplomatic route must be examined. Interministerial MRE/MJ Order No. 501/2012 provides for outgoing transmission from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within its residual scope. The doctrinal concept of international comity neither substitutes for that basis nor enables a private party to offer an assurance of reciprocity on behalf of the state. [2] [4] [9]

3. Classify the request entering Brazil

Where assistance seeks to give effect to a foreign ruling subject to recognition review, exequatur falls within the STJ’s jurisdiction. Recognition of a final decision and execution of an interlocutory ruling are distinct: Articles 960 and 961 of the CPC distinguish their regimes, subject to special statutory or treaty provisions. Requiring full recognition proceedings for every act of service obscures that separation. [1] [2]

Direct assistance may be available where the measure does not result directly from a foreign decision subject to that review. Administrative requests proceed before the competent body; judicial activity, where necessary, is considered by the federal court at the place of execution. Articles 32 to 34 of the CPC establish this distinction and referral through the AGU or Public Prosecutor’s Office in the statutory circumstances, without turning the central function into a power to grant exequatur. [2]

Proceedings concerning letters before the STJ must preserve the opportunity to be heard. The defence addresses the requirements for effectiveness in Brazil rather than reconsideration of the originating dispute. Participation by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, where applicable, forms part of the procedure; its opinion or objection does not replace the judicial decision. Authenticity, intelligibility and the limits of the act must be assessed against the instrument actually used. [2] [15]

Once authorisation is granted, execution takes place before the competent federal court under Article 109(X) of the Constitution and the CPC. The material act of serving a person or taking evidence is not called exequatur. Nor does approval authorise measures outside the request: the content submitted for review defines what may be performed. [1] [2]

4. Organise requirements, attachments and useful information

Letters issued in Brazilian proceedings must satisfy Article 260 of the CPC: originating and executing courts, the full text of the documents specified there, identification of the act and a closing bearing the judge’s signature. Additional supporting documents may be required; where a document is subject to expert examination, the original must be sent and a reproduction retained in the case file. Special treaty provisions and the nature of the measure must be considered, without replacing analysis with a universal checklist. [2]

Within the residual regime of Order No. 501/2012, Articles 7 and 8 specify information, documents, translation and copies. The Service Convention instead requires its form and the documents in Article 3; the Evidence Convention describes the information needed for an evidentiary request. A complete judgment is an appropriate attachment where the object and procedure require it, rather than an invariable prerequisite for initial service or examination of a witness. [4] [5] [10]

Supplementary information can be decisive without being mandatory in every case. The order requests additional identifying information where possible; questions and documents to be examined depend on the evidentiary object; special formalities must be requested and justified within the instrument. This distinction maintains precision in preparation and avoids asserting that any missing personal detail automatically makes cooperation inadmissible. [4] [10]

As a practical arrangement, the request’s legal basis, the act to be performed and evidence of each stage should be distinguished. This adds no legal formality: the division makes it easier to check whether a decision was attached, whether its translation corresponds to the document and whether the response satisfies the requested act. The table below indicates each element’s status, always subject to the applicable basis. [2] [4] [5] [10]

5. Check language, translation and authenticity

Translation must be distinguished from legalisation. Article 41 of the CPC recognises the authenticity of a document and its Portuguese translation transmitted to Brazil through a Central Authority or diplomatic channels, dispensing with sworn certification, authentication or legalisation, subject to reciprocity where necessary. That rule depends on the specified channel and does not make every document delivered outside it automatically authentic. [2]

For outgoing requests, language is determined by the requested state’s law and instrument, taking its declarations into account. The Evidence Convention contains specific rules on language and certification of translations; universal acceptance of English, French or Portuguese cannot simply be presumed. Brazilian guidance issued in 2026 recommends consulting the receiving body and the convention’s particular requirements at destination, including the possibility of electronic transmission. [9] [10]

When Brazil receives documents under the Service Convention, its declaration requires their translation into Portuguese, with the exception concerning the annexed form. Exemption from legalisation of the treaty request does not remove that language requirement. Before obtaining an apostille, endorsement or new sworn translation, whether the formality is actually required for the selected channel must be checked. [2] [5] [6]

6. Procedural communications and postal service

For service of process, summons and notifications in civil or commercial matters, the 1965 Convention must be examined within its own scope. It does not apply where the addressee’s address is unknown. Under that instrument, Brazil objected to the methods in Articles 8 and 10, including the postal channel in Article 10(a). Nationality does not, by itself, permit use of a rejected transmission method or removal of defence safeguards. [5] [6]

Proper service cannot be determined through slogans taken from old precedents. SEC No. 919/EX, decided on 19 October 2005, was summarised by the STJ in the context of a notarial notification in a foreign language. The headnote in SEC No. 4.891/EX, decided on 5 December 2011, records a matter of personal status and correspondence lacking the addressee’s signature, with recognition refused. The earlier decision did not subsequently revise the 2011 ruling, nor do those features constitute general permission for service by post. [17] [18]

The current instrument requires attention to the certificate of execution and the opportunity to defend, including in default proceedings. Mere service must not be equated with recognition of a future judgment on the merits: Article 13 of the Convention defines its own grounds for refusal and does not allow refusal solely because of a claim to exclusive jurisdiction or the unavailability of the action under domestic law. That special rule must be considered before transferring to service an objection directed at the judgment. [5]

7. Taking evidence abroad and in Brazil

An evidentiary request must identify the proceedings, nature of the case and material sought. The 1970 Convention also covers contemplated judicial proceedings, but not evidence lacking a connection to proceedings commenced or contemplated. Persons to be examined, subjects or questions, documents to be inspected and any special method of execution must be described where relevant. An undefined request does not become adequate merely because it is called letters rogatory. [10]

The executing authority generally applies its procedural law and may comply with a requested special formality within Article 9. Privileges or duties not to give evidence are addressed by Article 11, while compulsory measures depend on Article 10 and local law. The Convention excludes service and the issue of process for enforcement, provisional or protective measures from the concept of other judicial acts. [10]

In requests received in Brazil, the source of the order also matters. In a decision of 23 September 2025 reported in Bulletin No. 875/2026, the STJ’s Special Court required recognition review of a foreign decision ordering a social report in parental responsibility proceedings. The case shows that an evidentiary character alone does not dispense with effectiveness review. The CPC’s distinction between that situation and original assistance through direct assistance, together with the relevant treaty regime, must nevertheless be preserved. [2] [16]

8. Enforcement effects, urgency and assets

The enforcement route depends on the ruling to be implemented. The CPC provides for letters rogatory for a foreign interlocutory decision and permits urgent measures, while a final decision follows the applicable recognition regime, subject to statutory or treaty exceptions. A general exclusion of all civil letters containing a decision or an asset restraint is therefore unfounded. Legal availability of the procedure does not amount to approval of the measure. [2]

Under Article 962, a foreign urgent decision may be executed without a prior hearing if a subsequent opportunity to be heard is assured. Urgency is assessed by the issuing authority, without removing the remaining effectiveness requirements; a judgment exempt from recognition has its own rule in § 4. Describing a matter as urgent does not replace the decision document or authorise a party to operate Brazilian asset-restraint systems directly. [2]

For assets, the object must be checked against Brazil’s exclusive jurisdiction under Articles 23 and 964 of the CPC. It is incorrect to conclude that every act concerning real property in Brazil is indiscriminately prohibited, or that any difference in substantive law offends public policy. Where the request is limited to service or evidence, Article 13 of the Service Convention and Article 12 of the Evidence Convention also apply. Analysis must address the concrete effect without extending the measure to determination of matters reserved to Brazil. [2] [5] [10]

9. Criminal measures and limits on transferring rules

Criminal matters retain their own regime. Article 368 of the CPP governs service on an accused abroad at a known location and suspension of the limitation period until execution; Article 369 concerns service in foreign legations. Articles 780 to 786 address letters for service and evidence, subject to relevant conventions and treaties. [3]

The CPP’s older references to the STF or superseded judicial bodies must be reconciled with Articles 105(I)(i) and 109(X) of the Constitution. Enforcement of criminal convictions, interim measures and restrictions requires a basis and procedure appropriate to the object; admissibility cannot be inferred from a generic list of enforcement acts. The Hague Service and Evidence Conventions in civil or commercial matters do not extend to criminal investigations by automatic analogy. [1] [3] [5] [10]

10. Historical background and current framework

Article 12, § 4, of Law No. 221 of 20 November 1894 recorded exequatur review by the Federal Government and execution by sectional judges. Its text distinguished letters rogatory from recognition of a foreign judgment. That historical milestone neither supports a present prohibition on every enforcement measure nor makes the procedure of an earlier era a universal current requirement. [12]

Under the 1934 Constitution, Article 77 vested power to grant exequatur in the President of the Supreme Court. Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004 transferred jurisdiction to the STJ. That development must be read with the distinction between admissibility and execution, now allocated constitutionally, without assuming that changing the court dispenses with documents or determines the request’s outcome. [1] [13] [14]

The current framework rests on the 2015 CPC, treaties and the RISTJ’s own provisions. References to the 1973 CPC and STJ Resolution No. 9/2005 belong to the institution’s history rather than the current general texts for preparing letters. Applicable rules must be checked before issuance and implementation, particularly where the authority, channel or registration rule has changed. [2] [8] [15]

11. Planning, expenses and proof of execution

Setting a hearing date requires compatibility with the transmission route and nature of the act. Article 261 of the CPC addresses the period allowed for letters and the parties’ cooperation; the recommended lead times in Order No. 501/2012 are neither completion deadlines nor indiscriminately binding on every state. Expert examination, an interpreter or a special formality may entail expenses under the applicable instrument, without a universal rule of free execution or presumed charges. [2] [4] [10]

Finally, the response must be checked against the requested measure: who was served, what evidence was actually obtained, which order was executed or why execution was impossible. The Service Convention certificate and documents under Article 13 of the Evidence Convention serve distinct purposes. The transmission receipt, central registration and authorisation of effectiveness prove particular stages; none, in isolation, amounts to complete execution of the request. [5] [8] [10]

Frequently asked questions

Official references

1. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Articles 5(LIV) and (LV), 105(I)(i) and 109(X): due process, STJ exequatur and execution in the federal courts.
2. Code of Civil Procedure — Law No. 13.105/2015. Articles 23 to 41, 260 to 263 and 960 to 965: international jurisdiction, cooperation, documents, recognition review, urgency and performance.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure — Decree-Law No. 3.689/1941. Articles 368, 369 and 780 to 786: service and criminal cooperation, subject to treaties and present constitutional jurisdiction.
4. Interministerial MRE/MJ Order No. 501 of 21 March 2012. Articles 1 to 9: residual transmission, identification and supporting documents; subsidiary application where an agreement exists.
5. 1965 Hague Service Convention — Decree No. 9.734/2019. Decree, Articles 1 and 2; Convention, Articles 1 to 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 28: scope, form, language, reservations and safeguards.
6. HCCH — Brazil’s declarations and reservations to the Service Convention. Reservations to Articles 8 and 10 and declarations on translation and certificates.
7. HCCH — status of the 1965 Service Convention. Official table and Article 28 mechanism for checking application between the states concerned.
8. MJSP Order No. 1.195 of 7 April 2026. Articles 1 to 5: direct outgoing transmission to foreign Central Authorities under the Service and Evidence Conventions, registration and subsidiary application of Order No. 501/2012.
9. MJSP/DRCI — Forwarding Authorities: Service and Evidence. Administrative guidance on direct transmission, separate registration, contacts and checking foreign requirements.
10. 1970 Hague Evidence Convention — Decree No. 9.039/2017. Decree and Convention, Articles 1 to 14, 23 and 39: evidential scope, form, language, execution, limits and acceptance of accessions.
11. HCCH — status of the 1970 Evidence Convention. Official table and acceptance of accessions under Article 39.
12. Law No. 221 of 20 November 1894. Article 12, § 4: historical provision for Federal Government exequatur and performance by sectional judges.
13. 1934 Constitution. Article 77: historical exequatur jurisdiction of the President of the Supreme Court.
14. Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004. Amendment of Articles 102 and 105: transfer of recognition and exequatur to the STJ.
15. STJ — rules concerning recognition and exequatur. Official indication of the regime under Articles 216-A to 216-X of the RISTJ and Articles 960 to 965 of the CPC.
16. STJ — Case-law Bulletin No. 875 of 3 February 2026. Note on a foreign decision requiring a socioeconomic report and the need for recognition review.
17. STJ — judicial document in SEC No. 8.396/PT, published on 11/12/2014. Headnote, report and opinion; page 6 reproduces the headnote in SEC No. 4.891/EX, decided on 5/12/2011 and published on 2/2/2012.
18. STJ — 2005 annual bulletin, Bulletin No. 265. Note Recognition. Foreign judgment. Service, page 162 of the PDF: SEC No. 919/EX, reporting Justice Paulo Gallotti, decided on 19/10/2005.