El hábeas contra sentencias condenatorias en firme dentro del ordenamiento jurídico ecuatoriano.
The innovation of the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus has been evident with the entry into force of the Constituent of 2008, which aims to recover the freedom of anyone who is deprived of it either illegally, arbitrarily or illegitimately, either by order of a public authority or any perso...
Shranjeno v:
| Glavni avtor: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | bachelorThesis |
| Jezik: | spa |
| Izdano: |
2023
|
| Teme: | |
| Online dostop: | http://dspace.unach.edu.ec/handle/51000/11477 |
| Oznake: |
Označite
Brez oznak, prvi označite!
|
| Izvleček: | The innovation of the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus has been evident with the entry into force of the Constituent of 2008, which aims to recover the freedom of anyone who is deprived of it either illegally, arbitrarily or illegitimately, either by order of a public authority or any person, adding also in the body of constitutional procedural law that aims to protect liberty, life, physical integrity and other related rights. In this sense it is clear that in order to proceed with the guarantee it must first be established whether the "deprivation of liberty" is illegal, arbitrary or illegitimate, hence for the present study we will focus on the "illegality" of the deprivation of liberty, this being prohibited or contrary to the law, so there is no doubt that the illegal violates or violates what is established in the legislation, violating formalities, rights or others provided for in the legal system. Therefore, the sentence duly executed when issued contrary to the law or based on violations of constitutional rights is illegal, ergo, susceptible to the interposition of the jurisdictional action of habeas corpus to recover the liberty of the sentenced person due to the illegality of the sentence, Therefore, the importance of the present investigation is centered on establishing the applicability of habeas corpus against duly executed convictions, which has not been used by defense attorneys either due to lack of knowledge or lack of jurisprudential development on the subject. |
|---|