Criminal Justice And Oral Accusatory System

Criminal Justice and Oral Accusatory System

Introduction

The investigative attribution that the prosecutor possesses in the Ecuadorian accusatory oral system does not greatly disagree with the functions performed that serve as a livelihood to prepare an imputation.

Developing

It is important to note that the roles to which the prosecutor is empowered during the previous investigation period in the national and Anglo -Saxon system is quite different, since there is an extensive gap in what respects the direction of the ownership of the criminal action public. The difference lies in the long freedom that the Ecuadorian prosecutor possesses in the accusatory oral system, since his discretion is widely consented to by the criminal law.

The role of the prosecutor in the previous Ecuadorian investigation is not subject to the judge’s criteria, since the essential action of the judge enters the scene from the beginning of the criminal procedure, prior to this has no greater participation, while in the Anglo -Saxon system The judge is in charge and accredited to declare whether it allows prior investigative action by the prosecutor, said in other words, the role of the prosecutor in this system in the pre -procedural stage is adhered to its authorization.

Now, the question that this document is raised in which route would be the most ideal to be applied in the country, taking into account the context of its citizenship and the legal arguments that approve its execution.

Under this premise, questions are considered permissible during previous investigation: Does the oral accusatory system imply granting absolute control to the prosecutor? And to what extent is the prosecutor’s action legitimate?

The thesis of this problem does not seek to define which jurisdiction is the one that leads the public criminal action in the previous investigation, but to establish a limit to the origin with respect to the role of the prosecutor in this phase, since granting a wide power, usually overflows in the excesses , contravening one of the purposes of the Integral Criminal Organic Code, that is to say the minimum criminal intervention. In my opinion, a barrier is necessary that circumscribes the action of the Prosecutor’s Office and protects the rights of the subjects investigated.

conclusion

The oral accusatory system, when instituted as a model particularly guarantee, is closely linked to what is stipulated in article 3 of the Integral Criminal Organic Code, which refers to the minimum criminal intervention. Hence, the detentors of the Administration of Justice must be ready to decongest the criminal system, so the prosecutor must evacuate all the possibilities before opening a previous investigation and once this phase initiated, it is preferable that strong indications of alleged infringement.

The quality of legitimacy of previous investigation is not diminished as it is a pre -procedural stage, since otherwise it would not be clearly prescribed in the criminal law. In summary, the prosecutor’s role must be broad, but prior to an express authorization from the judge, in such a way that there is a demarcation by the Judiciary and with it it was fulfilled that he professes the Constitution.