Image taken from: http://arami-reta.blogspot.com
Hello! I write again to the years here.
had not written about the referendum because it was not clear how to vote. Now that I've heard and read much, I can write something useful. We question by question, because I believe every one deserves a separate analysis. 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 allow penalize unreasonable obstacles in the administration of justice by judges, judges, prosecutors, experts or servers subsidiary bodies of the judiciary, as defined in Annex 1?
ANNEX 1
"The remand order will remain in effect if by any means the person has escaped processed, delayed, avoided or prevented their prosecution through acts designed to cause its expiration. If the delay occurs produced during processing or the expiration, be it by acts or omissions of judges, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, experts or servers subsidiary bodies, shall be deemed to have incurred these in a very serious offense and should be sanctioned under the law. "
What do we change?
Article 77 of the Constitution describes the basic guarantees that a person has been released from prison. For example No one can be saved without a written order from a competent authority, he must "read their rights" to the detainee (the typical "you have the right to remain silent, to call the defense with a lawyer and if you can not pay, the State will provide a "we hear in the movies), among other rights.
The No. 9. right now says that no person can be detained for more than 6 months (if the offense is punishable by imprisonment) or more than one year (if the offense is punishable by imprisonment, that is, if the offense is more serious):
CURRENT TEXT OF RULE CHANGE INTENDED
"Under responsibility of the judge or court hearing process, pretrial detention may not exceed six months in cases involving crimes punishable by imprisonment or one year in cases of offenses punishable by imprisonment. If you exceed these limits, the remand order would be void. "
I do not want to think about if we do not like or the government. Rather, ask yourself objectively, change, is useful or not? Is it safe or not? Utility
change
The expiration of custody there since 1998, the Constitution Sangolquí. It is good that preventive detention expires, because otherwise, a person could spend in prison all the time and not be judged. Many times people are left (before 1998) so much time in preventive detention equvialía or exceeded the time of the penalty itself. On more than one occasion, people who passed got saved for years after an acquittal. Some were American Court of Human Rights, that more than once said that Ecuador should put a limit on detention (can not be "indefinite.")
Needless to say that any country that respects DD.HH. American system, the remand prisons are limited. Therefore, the idea of \u200b\u200b"eliminating the expiration of custody" is not viable.
this in mind, the Assembly in 1998 set a limit for detention. The same limit was repeated in the 2008 Constitution. Since 1999 (which began to expire remand), the detainees began to leave because they have no ruling within the law. Since then, many detainees do not seek plead his innocence or eliminate indictments making the prosecution, but seek lengthen and delay the process until the deadline of pretrial detention and go free. According
, The Universe, a report Judicial Council in 2009 indicated that of 24,958 hearing is not held 6854: 2,280 for "legal tricks" 2299 did not specify the reason, 963 per problems of the Office; 820 the absence of witnesses, 321 per drawbacks of rehabilitation centers, 156 for the judiciary, and, 15 others.
To avoid these maneuvers, the Code of Criminal Procedure states that are not counted for the revocation, the days of delay were caused when by the accused or his counsel:
" Criminal Procedure Code. Article 169 .- Revocation of custody .- Pretrial detention may not exceed six months in cases involving crimes punishable by imprisonment or one year in cases punishable by imprisonment.
In both cases, the deadline for expiration will operate from the date it became effective on remand.
If these limits be exceeded, detention order shall be void, under the responsibility of the criminal investigating judge hearing the case.
When should exceed the time limits provided by the constitutional rules and the Code of Criminal Procedure and lapses of preventive detention, granting, as a result of freedom of who is in fact deprived of it, the Court of Criminal or Court of Criminal jurisdiction, necessarily and immediately sent complete record of each case to the National Judicial Council, a body to maintain an individual record of these facts.
If you can not be the adjudication hearing for failure of the accused, witnesses considered necessary for the resolution of the case, experts, interpreters or lawyers defending the accused, ie causes not attributable to the administration of justice, this absence suspended ipso jure the course of the deadlines set in this article until the date that is actually carried out the adjudication hearing. The foregoing is without prejudice to the trial record necessary for the suspension in each case by the corresponding secretary.
not be considered, therefore, has exceeded the limitation period of preventive detention when the defendant, by whatever means, has avoided, delayed, avoided or prevented their prosecution through acts designed to cause the expiration of the prison detention.
I mentioned in the preceding paragraphs includes unilateral actions of the accused or defendant when, with procedural unfairness or incidents causing delays the processing of the process not related to the right of objection to a resolution or statement, or deliberately violate the provisions of the criminal court or tribunal guarantees Guarantees criminal submitted to legally convened hearings and reported, indicating an intention to delay the normal development process to benefit from a future declaration of nullity.
In determining this period are not counted as time has elapsed between the date of filing of the objections and the date of issuance of the rulings on the challenges defendants only when they have been denied. Produced
revocation of pretrial detention, in the same order that the judge declare the criminal guarantees that the accused have become subject to regular reporting to the court of criminal securities and prohibited from leaving the country, or one of these measures if it considers sufficient to ensure the immediacy of processing with the process.
The obvious question is: if the law says and the time when the accused are not delay the trial, why do the same thing in the Constitution? Well, it happens that many judges comparing the text of the Constitution and the Penal Procedure Code and, as in the Constitution did not establish where the term Elapsed not apply the rule "more favorable to the accused" and let out the accused in a year (or six months) even though the accused himself had delayed the process.
is striking that in Cuenca, judges have left expire never a custody (or soon will be expired one or two), but in other cities, the most common prisons expire and least common are sentences. Why does this happen? There are many reasons but the main one is that the judges who let expire remand No risk: no the sanctions and in the few cases where no penalty is a small fine or suspension of work days (with pay!). Perhaps the Council of the Judiciary in Cuenca gets tougher sanctions or perhaps morlaco society morally sanction the judge to be negligent in their work. The question becomes more severe punishment for judges who let expire a remand. Danger
change
is said that the reform is spirit "Social Christian." In fact, the PSC has always been against the revocation of custody. In fact, after the Assembly of 1998, the PSC promoted legal reform in 2003 that created a figure called "detention firm" , by which a defendant remained imprisoned indefinitely even before receiving sentence. This mechanism was ruled unconstitutional in 2006 because it violated the 1998 Constitution, but Cinthya Viteri proposed in 2009 a similar figure, the "mandatory detention", which basically meant that a defendant be imprisoned indefinitely until sentencing.
has been argued that this reform, the detainees will remain detained indefinitely, or at least, that the limitation period will be longer, which impacts the protection rights of the accused.
believe that the only defendant who will be harmed will be the one who actually delay the process moves. Is it correct to remove the incentive to delay the trial. So vote Yes.
how you'll vote on this question?
To read more:
Text El Comercio newspaper that explains the question.
History custody since 1998 (and proposals to re Cynthia Viteri indefinite preventive detention).
Another blog that discusses this question.
0 comments:
Post a Comment