Bibliographic citations
Avalos, B., (2022). Interés superior de los menores de edad y el derecho al contradictorio como justificadores del contradictorio previo en las medidas temporales sobre el fondo [Tesis, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego - UPAO]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/9595
Avalos, B., Interés superior de los menores de edad y el derecho al contradictorio como justificadores del contradictorio previo en las medidas temporales sobre el fondo [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego - UPAO; 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/9595
@phdthesis{renati/378657,
title = "Interés superior de los menores de edad y el derecho al contradictorio como justificadores del contradictorio previo en las medidas temporales sobre el fondo",
author = "Avalos Pretell, Bruno Fernando",
publisher = "Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego - UPAO",
year = "2022"
}
The present thesis is entitled ""Best interests of minors and the right to adversarial proceedings as justifiers of the prior adversarial proceedings in temporary measures on the merits"", which was aimed at determining why the best interests of minors and the right to adversarial proceedings in its strong sense justify that the prior adversarial proceedings be established as a rule in the processing of temporary measures on the merits. The problem posed was evaluated by applying the logical deductive method, while the legal methods used were comparative, hermeneutic and, especially, dogmatic. The data collection techniques used were essentially two: the survey and bibliographic analysis, while the instruments used to collect data were the survey guide and the bibliographic cards. The most relevant result was that prior contradictory proceedings, as a rule, in the processing of temporary measures on the merits, has been established in advanced countries where the Constitutional State of Law model is in force, as is the case of Spain and Italy. The most relevant conclusion is that the right to contradictory hearing in its strongest sense and the best interests of the child, as a procedural rule, justify that the contradictory hearing in the processing of a temporary measure on the merits linked to the rights of infants be prior, since both guarantee that there is the least possibility of error in the adoption of the anticipated decision, which implies that the possibility of causing irreparable harm to the infant is reduced. In addition, the former democratizes the process and makes the judge's anticipated decision more legitimate, and the latter allows the consequences of the temporary measure on the child or adolescent to be foreseen.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License