Reforma del art. 226.3 del Código de Procedimiento Penal, en relación a la resolución de la audiencia preparatoria del juicio
Criminal action in our procedural system is governed by two kinds, public and private, the exercise of the first corresponds to the prosecutor and the second complaint by the injured party. In crimes against public is divided by four process steps such as the preliminary investigation, the intermedi...
Gorde:
| Egile nagusia: | |
|---|---|
| Formatua: | bachelorThesis |
| Hizkuntza: | spa |
| Argitaratua: |
2015
|
| Gaiak: | |
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | http://dspace.unl.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/8501 |
| Etiketak: |
Etiketa erantsi
Etiketarik gabe, Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen!
|
Etiketa erantsi | Gaia: | Criminal action in our procedural system is governed by two kinds, public and private, the exercise of the first corresponds to the prosecutor and the second complaint by the injured party. In crimes against public is divided by four process steps such as the preliminary investigation, the intermediate stage, the stage of the trial and appeals stage. The intermediate stage, the subject of this problem has its vices order to know the formal respect of the proceedings up to that point in the proceedings, to resolve the existence of procedural requirements, questions, skills and procedural issues, enunciation and exclusion of evidence will be presented at trial and evidentiary agreements in order to give certain facts proven. But within this stage once you have made the pre-trial hearing is set the order of the Judge of Criminal Guarantees, which in Article 226.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: "Resolution. - Finished subjects interventions procedural guarantees criminal judge, verbally announce the present resolution, which will be considered as notified in the same act. The court clerk shall keep writing or recording the proceedings and presentations made at the hearing and the full contents of the ruling. It is permissible from the most elementary logic, that the Judge of Criminal Guarantees issued its ruling after the hearing Preparatory Judgment without ever analyzed and carefully considered the objections and arguments of the defense to discuss the prosecutor's opinion Charging Party, and much less without analyzing documentary evidence as the parties may in the course of this hearing. Judge of Criminal Guarantees can not simultaneously drive the already complex hearing and review all documentary evidence is being presented at the same time. Well you look quickly but very evil that I do arriesgándole sacrificing justice and Criminal Judge to issue a ruling not only wrong but unfair, hurtful and harmful |
|---|