Question 1.
Do you agree to amend paragraph 9 of Article 77 of the Constitution incorporated a clause which prevents the expiration of preventive detention when it has been caused by the person on trial and punish allowing unreasonable obstacles in the administration of justice by judges, judges, prosecutors, experts or servers subsidiary bodies of the judiciary, as defined in Annex 1?
This question raises the apparent need to curb the benefits of the revocation of custody when the abuse comes from the procesados y servidores judiciales.
Esta pregunta es innecesaria e incompleta. Es innecesaria porque el Código de Procedimiento Penal vigente ya regula la prohibición de la caducidad de la prisión preventiva cuando ha sido atribuida a maniobras desleales del procesado, pues el inciso sexto del artículo 169 señala que:
“No se considerará, por consiguiente, que ha excedido el plazo de caducidad de prisión preventiva cuando el imputado, por cualquier medio, ha evadido, retardado, evitado o impedido su juzgamiento mediante actos orientados a provocar la caducidad de la prisión preventiva”.
Además, el mismo Art. 169 del Código de Procedimiento Penal, y el Art. 108.7 del Code of Judicial Function, and establish liability and sanctions for judicial officers in the process no longer invalidate the detention.
Moreover, although the question repeated exceptions to the expiration of the remand for conduct of the defendant or the judicial authorities are regulated, is incomplete because it does not foresee the complexity of the case exception, which is fed widespread in the doctrine of the European and Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
So what is the intent of the question? None the less in terms of regulatory reform. Thus a question of this weight, which interferes with rights and guarantees of due process, merely part of penal populism, that strategy that dismantles rights under the security discourse in the symbolic power of measuring underground popularity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment