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
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001240657
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Vox Juris, ISSN 1812-6804, Vol. 34, Nº. 2, 2017, pags. 113-124
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
Actividad probatoria
tercero imparcial juzgamiento modelo acusatorio delimitación de funciones técnicas de litigación oral teoría del caso igualdad de armas Trial activity impartial third trial accusatory model delimitation of functions techniques of oral litigation theory of the case equality of arms |
| spellingShingle |
Actividad probatoria
tercero imparcial juzgamiento modelo acusatorio delimitación de funciones técnicas de litigación oral teoría del caso igualdad de armas Trial activity impartial third trial accusatory model delimitation of functions techniques of oral litigation theory of the case equality of arms Castro Medina, Rodolfo La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957) |
| description |
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.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Castro Medina, Rodolfo
|
| author_facet |
Castro Medina, Rodolfo
|
| author_sort |
Castro Medina, Rodolfo
|
| title |
La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
|
| title_short |
La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
|
| title_full |
La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
|
| title_fullStr |
La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)
|
| title_sort |
la actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. leg. n.° 957)
|
| publishDate |
2017
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6222546
|
| _version_ |
1709746436329963520
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00012406572019-03-02La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del código procesal penal (dec. Leg. N.° 957)Castro Medina, RodolfoActividad probatoriatercero imparcialjuzgamientomodelo acusatoriodelimitación de funcionestécnicas de litigación oralteoría del caso igualdad de armasTrial activityimpartial third trialaccusatory modeldelimitation of functionstechniques of oral litigationtheory of the caseequality of armsThis 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.Este artículo se ocupa en señalar y acreditar que el Código Procesal Penal del 2004, al considerar la etapa de juzgamiento como una fase principal del proceso penal normado bajo los principios de oralidad, publicidad, inmediación, contradicción e igualdad procesal, entre otros, demostraría una delimitación de funciones claramente establecida, tanto para las partes procesales como para el tercero imparcial, formando un escenario triádico en el juzgamiento. Por ello, más allá de la observación, control y dirección del juicio oral, sería contraproducente aceptar alguna intervención judicial en la actividad probatoria como lo prescribe también el citado código adjetivo. Los objetivos del estudio son identificar qué principios procesales y estructurales que rigen el juicio oral son transgredidos con las facultades de intervención del juez de juzgamiento en el marco del Código Procesal Penal del 2004; analizar el concepto y atribuciones que comprende ser el tercero imparcial en el contexto de la actividad probatoria; identificar qué comprende la teoría del caso y qué sujetos procesales cuentan con esta; y concienciar a los operadores judiciales sobre lo que implica un cambio cultural en los sujetos procesales de cara a un modelo acusatorio contradictorio. El autor enfatiza la necesidad de contar con un órgano jurisdiccional sin facultad de intervención (súper partes), donde el juez, como tercero neutral e imparcial, va a apreciar el debate entre el fiscal y el abogado defensor del acusado, y tendrá que valorar la actividad probatoria percibida directamente sobre los argumentos y medios de prueba presentados y examinados por los distintos intervinientes, sin suplir la actividad de las partes. Esto quiere decir que el juzgador, como tercero imparcial o «árbitro» entre las partes, reservará su intervención para observar, dirigir y controlar directamente el debate entre dichos sujetos procesales garantizando los derechos fundamentales de la persona. Para ello debe propiciarse la concienciación respecto al hecho de que la teoría del caso de las partes procesales, en igualdad de armas, es un plan estratégico de inicio a fin en el juzgamiento, y que los principios que rigen dicha etapa estelar son un conjunto de ideas fuerza de aplicación directa y necesaria que van a cautelar la actividad probatoria.2017text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6222546(Revista) ISSN 1812-6804Vox Juris, ISSN 1812-6804, Vol. 34, Nº. 2, 2017, pags. 113-124spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|