Análisis de la Prisión Preventiva establecida en el Art. 534 del COIP, frente al Principio de Presunción de Inocencia contemplado en el Art. 77 numerales 1 y 11 de la CRE.
Fecha
2022-03
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad de Jurisprudencia Ciencias Sociales y Polìticas
Resumen
En el presente trabajo se analizó la prisión preventiva frente al principio de la presunción de
inocencia, sobre la base doctrinaria y la corrección a la CRE, a su Art. 77 numerales 1 y 11, en
relación con, la prisión preventiva y el no uso de otras medidas alternativas a esta, la misma que
cambió el carácter de excepcional y el uso prioritario de medidas cautelares alternativas a la
prisión preventiva, por el estado de necesidad. Tiene como objetivo, elaborar una enmienda
constitucional, que garantice la excepcionalidad de la prisión preventiva y la prioridad de aplicar
otras alternativas a esta medida. Los resultados de la entrevista demostraron la necesidad de
hacerlo a través de una propuesta de enmienda constitucional. Se concluyó que se estaría
vulnerando derechos constitucionales al aplicar excesivamente esta medida cautelar. Asimismo,
se recomienda que los jueces motiven su decisión valorando lo establecido en la CRE y la Ley y,
los fiscales al tomar la decisión de acusar y solicitar esta medida deben hacerlo de manera
fundamentada y cuando no sea eficaz otras medidas.
In the present work, preventive detention was analyzed against the principle of the presumption of innocence, on the doctrinal basis and the correction to the CRE, to its Art. 77 numerals 1 and 11, in relation to preventive detention and non-use of other alternative measures to this, the same one that changed the exceptional character and the priority use of alternative precautionary measures to preventive detention, by the state of necessity. Its objective is to elaborate a constitutional amendment that guarantees the exceptional nature of preventive detention and the priority of applying other alternatives to this measure. The results of the interview demonstrated the need to do so through a proposed constitutional amendment. It was concluded that constitutional rights would be violated by excessively applying this precautionary measure. Likewise, it is recommended that the judges motivate their decision by assessing what is established in the CRE and the Law and, when making the decision to accuse and request this measure, prosecutors must do so in a well-founded manner and when other measures are not effective.
In the present work, preventive detention was analyzed against the principle of the presumption of innocence, on the doctrinal basis and the correction to the CRE, to its Art. 77 numerals 1 and 11, in relation to preventive detention and non-use of other alternative measures to this, the same one that changed the exceptional character and the priority use of alternative precautionary measures to preventive detention, by the state of necessity. Its objective is to elaborate a constitutional amendment that guarantees the exceptional nature of preventive detention and the priority of applying other alternatives to this measure. The results of the interview demonstrated the need to do so through a proposed constitutional amendment. It was concluded that constitutional rights would be violated by excessively applying this precautionary measure. Likewise, it is recommended that the judges motivate their decision by assessing what is established in the CRE and the Law and, when making the decision to accuse and request this measure, prosecutors must do so in a well-founded manner and when other measures are not effective.
Descripción
Palabras clave
PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA, EXCEPCIONALIDAD, PRIORIDAD, PRESUNCIÓN DE INOCENCIA, DERECHO DE LIBERTAD.