La prisión preventiva y su afectación a la presunción de inocencia
Files
Date
2020-08-14
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
Actualmente, la prisión preventiva, se usa y utiliza irracionalmente, vislumbrándose en
las audiencias, un escenario de reproche político, azuzando a diferentes grupos sociales,
a fin de generar presión en las decisiones judiciales, lesionando la presunción de inocencia
del imputado, a tal grado que estas repercusiones sociales y mediáticas terminan
influyendo en las decisiones de los encargados de administrar justicia, muchas veces
apartadas de motivación.
El presente artículo, se aborda a partir de la injerencia en la libertad personal de un
individuo que se presupone que mantiene la calidad de inocente, mientras no haya sido
declarada su responsabilidad penal; su estudio y análisis está dentro del ámbito de las
ciencias penales y procesal penal y del derecho Constitucional, las cuales constituyen la
razón de ser de su enfoque.
El requerimiento de prisión preventiva, mediante el principio rogatorio, que el Ministerio
Público realiza al Juez de garantías, todas en su mayoría tiene matices irracionalidad, y el
otorgamiento de la prisión preventiva con motivaciones aparentes, conlleva a la
vulneración de la presunción de inocencia, lo cual se corrobora con la sentencia del
Tribunal Constitucional en el Exp. N° 02534-2019-HC/TC, y la sentencia de la Primera
Sala Penal de Apelaciones Nacional Permanente Especializada en Delitos de Corrupción
de Funcionarios, en el Exp. 00029-2017-33-5005-JR-PE-03.
Los otorgamientos de la prisión preventiva por parte de los administradores de justicia,
presentan rasgos de irracionalidad sin la motivación debida, y la proporcionalidad que
justifique su otorgamiento.
Currently, it is being observed that, in the field of criminal law, the procedural institution of preventive detention, it is being used and used irrationally, illustrating that they were glaring at the hearings, requesting preventive detention, a scenario of political reproach, inciting different social groups, in order to generate pressure on judicial decisions, damaging the presumption of innocence of the accused, to such a degree that these social and media repercussions end up influencing the decisions of those in charge of administering justice, concretized in the granting of prisons preventive, often separated from motivation. The present article is approached starting from the interference in the personal freedom of an individual that is supposed to maintain the quality of innocent, while his criminal responsibility has not been declared; Its study and analysis is within the scope of the criminal sciences and criminal procedure and Constitutional law, which constitute the raison d'être of its approach. The requirement of preventive detention, through the rogatory principle, that the Public Ministry makes to the Judge of guarantees, all of them mostly have irrational nuances, and the granting of preventive detention with apparent motivations, leads to the violation of the presumption of innocence, which is corroborated with the ruling of the Constitutional Court in Exp. No. 02534-2019-HC / TC, and the ruling of the First Permanent National Criminal Court of Appeals Specialized in Crimes of Corruption of Officials, in Exp. 00029- 2017-33-5005-JR-PE-03. The grants of preventive detention by the administrators of justice, show features of irrationality without due motivation, and the proportionality that justifies its granting.
Currently, it is being observed that, in the field of criminal law, the procedural institution of preventive detention, it is being used and used irrationally, illustrating that they were glaring at the hearings, requesting preventive detention, a scenario of political reproach, inciting different social groups, in order to generate pressure on judicial decisions, damaging the presumption of innocence of the accused, to such a degree that these social and media repercussions end up influencing the decisions of those in charge of administering justice, concretized in the granting of prisons preventive, often separated from motivation. The present article is approached starting from the interference in the personal freedom of an individual that is supposed to maintain the quality of innocent, while his criminal responsibility has not been declared; Its study and analysis is within the scope of the criminal sciences and criminal procedure and Constitutional law, which constitute the raison d'être of its approach. The requirement of preventive detention, through the rogatory principle, that the Public Ministry makes to the Judge of guarantees, all of them mostly have irrational nuances, and the granting of preventive detention with apparent motivations, leads to the violation of the presumption of innocence, which is corroborated with the ruling of the Constitutional Court in Exp. No. 02534-2019-HC / TC, and the ruling of the First Permanent National Criminal Court of Appeals Specialized in Crimes of Corruption of Officials, in Exp. 00029- 2017-33-5005-JR-PE-03. The grants of preventive detention by the administrators of justice, show features of irrationality without due motivation, and the proportionality that justifies its granting.
Description
Keywords
Procedimiento penal--Perú, Presunción de inocencia--Perú, Proporcionalidad en derecho, Detención
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess