La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
This article is concerned with pointing out and believing that the Criminal Procedure Code of 2004, considering the judgment stage as a main phase of the criminal proceedings under the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy, contradiction and procedural equality, among others, would demonstrate...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6222546 |
| Source: | Vox Juris, ISSN 1812-6804, Vol. 34, Nº. 2, 2017, pags. 113-124 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
This article is concerned with pointing out and believing that the Criminal Procedure Code of 2004, considering the judgment stage as a main phase of the criminal proceedings under the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy, contradiction and procedural equality, among others, would demonstrate a clearly established delimitation of functions, both for the procedural parties, as well as for the impartial third party, forming a triadic scenario in the judgment. Therefore, beyond the observation, control and direction of the oral judgment, it would be counterproductive to accept some judicial intervention in the probative activity as also prescribed in the said adjective code. The objectives of the study are to identify which procedural and structural principles that govern the oral trial are violated with the powers of intervention of the judge of judgment within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2004; analyze the concept and attributions of being the impartial third party in the context of the probationary activity; identify what the theory of the case understands and which procedural subjects have it; and to make the judicial operators aware of what implies a cultural change in the procedural subjects in the face of a contradictory accusatory model. The author emphasizes on the need to have a court with no powers of intervention (super parties), where the judge, as neutral and impartial third party, will appreciate the debate between the prosecutor and the defense lawyer of the accused, and It will have to assess the evidentiary activity received directly on the arguments and evidence presented and examined by the various parties, without supplementing the activity of the parties. This means that the judge, as impartial third party or “arbitrator” between the parties, will reserved his intervention to directly observe, direct and control the debate between these procedural subjects, guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the person. In order to achieve this, awareness must be given to the fact that the theory of the case of procedural parties, in equality of arms, is a strategic plan from beginning to end in the judgment and that the principles that govern this stellar stage are a set of Ideas force of direct and necessary application that will guard the probative activity. |
|---|