Citas bibligráficas
Esta es una referencia generada automáticamente. Modifíquela de ser necesario
Mendoza, B., Damas, M. (2023). Principio de Proporcionalidad en la Prisión Preventiva [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/670043
Mendoza, B., Damas, M. Principio de Proporcionalidad en la Prisión Preventiva [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/670043
@misc{renati/409399,
title = "Principio de Proporcionalidad en la Prisión Preventiva",
author = "Damas Leyva, Mihael",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2023"
}
Título: Principio de Proporcionalidad en la Prisión Preventiva
Otros títulos: Principle of Proportionality in Pre-trial Jailing
Autor(es): Mendoza Mendoza, Brenda Jahayra; Damas Leyva, Mihael
Asesor(es): Zapata Villar, Robert Ramón
Palabras clave: Sistema procesal penal; Prisión preventiva; Derecho a la libertad personal; Principio de proporcionalidad; Criminal procedural system; Pre-trial detention; Right to personal liberty; Principle of proportionality
Campo OCDE: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.00
Fecha de publicación: 13-nov-2023
Institución: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)
Resumen: El presente trabajo analiza los fundamentos jurídicos abordados por la Corte Suprema para la aplicación de la prisión preventiva, al amparo del Acuerdo Plenario Nº01-2019/CIJ-116. No obstante, pese a los esfuerzos en su regulación, hay diversas interpretaciones por parte de los jueces penales respecto a los distintos criterios existentes para la aplicación de esta medida coercitiva. A raíz de ello, se generan problemáticas a nivel institucional, debido a que en el desarrollo del proceso existe una aplicación desmedida, por cuanto se emplea sin que concurran los criterios de valuación del principio de proporcionalidad, de acuerdo con los presupuestos y requisitos materiales establecidos en el Código Procesal Penal, mismos que sustentan la adecuada aplicabilidad de esta medida instaurada en el sistema procesal penal.
En ese marco, se debe recalcar que el principio de proporcionalidad representa un pilar fundamental en la prisión preventiva, ya que, actúa como regulador ante la dicotomía sustancial reflejada entre dos deberes del Estado de relevancia constitucional. Por un lado, el derecho a la libertad ambulatoria del ciudadano y, por el otro, su deber en la eficacia de la persecución del delito.
Así pues, a fin de brindar un análisis y propuesta de solución concreta, se utilizarán fuentes jurídicas y científicas actualizadas, con el propósito de evidenciar la esencial injerencia del principio de proporcionalidad en la aplicación de la prisión preventiva, toda vez que se instituye como parámetro orientativo inexorable, en pro de garantizar la libertad individual.
This paper analyses the legal grounds addressed by the Supreme Court for the application of pre-trial jailing, under the protection of Plenary Agreement Nº01-2019/CIJ-116. However, despite the efforts to regulate it, there are different interpretations by criminal judges regarding the different criteria for the application of this coercive measure. As a result, problems are generated at the institutional level, due to the fact that in the development of the process there is a disproportionate application, as it is used without the criteria of assessment of the principle of proportionality, in accordance to the budgets and material requirements established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which support the proper applicability of this measure established in the criminal procedural system. In this context, it should be emphasised that the principle of proportionality represents a fundamental pillar in pre-trial detention, as it acts as a regulator in the face of the substantial dichotomy reflected between two duties of the State of constitutional relevance. On the one hand, the right to freedom of movement of the citizen and, on the other, its duty to effectively prosecute crime. Thus, in order to provide an analysis and a proposal for a concrete solution, updated legal and scientific sources will be used, with the aim of demonstrating the essential interference of the principle of proportionality in the application of pre-trial jailing, since it is instituted as an inexorable guiding parameter, in order to guarantee individual liberty.
This paper analyses the legal grounds addressed by the Supreme Court for the application of pre-trial jailing, under the protection of Plenary Agreement Nº01-2019/CIJ-116. However, despite the efforts to regulate it, there are different interpretations by criminal judges regarding the different criteria for the application of this coercive measure. As a result, problems are generated at the institutional level, due to the fact that in the development of the process there is a disproportionate application, as it is used without the criteria of assessment of the principle of proportionality, in accordance to the budgets and material requirements established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which support the proper applicability of this measure established in the criminal procedural system. In this context, it should be emphasised that the principle of proportionality represents a fundamental pillar in pre-trial detention, as it acts as a regulator in the face of the substantial dichotomy reflected between two duties of the State of constitutional relevance. On the one hand, the right to freedom of movement of the citizen and, on the other, its duty to effectively prosecute crime. Thus, in order to provide an analysis and a proposal for a concrete solution, updated legal and scientific sources will be used, with the aim of demonstrating the essential interference of the principle of proportionality in the application of pre-trial jailing, since it is instituted as an inexorable guiding parameter, in order to guarantee individual liberty.
Enlace al repositorio: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/670043
Disciplina académico-profesional: Derecho
Institución que otorga el grado o título: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC). Facultad de Derecho
Grado o título: Abogado
Jurado: Zapata Villar, Robert Ramón; Pinto Bouroncle, Yolanda María
Fecha de registro: 26-dic-2023
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons