Keywords
Family
Testimony
Validity
How to Cite
Abstract
Despite the fact that the new Organic Integral Criminal Code, the judgment, introduction, and assessment of the evidence in the third chapter and rule 15 of article 643 clearly undermine the constitutional principles and rights. At the moment in numeral 15, in article 643, it states verbatim that the professionals who act in the technical offices of the courts of violence against women and the family do not require to give testimony in audience, however, it exists under this numeral disagreement between what is established in the constitution, because it is undermining the contradiction and due process, recognizing that for no reason and under no circumstances can the principle of speed be allowed to be above the rights protected by the Constitution. The objective of this study is to know the testimony of the technical professionals of the universities in relation to violence against women and the violation of the principle of contradiction. It is concluded that the lack of appearance of the professionals who act in the technical offices of the courts of violence against women and the family affects the rights of the accused, it is considered that the expertise, reports and police parties are documents that need the testimony to be valid, since the conclusions of the reports alone have no value regardless of whether the probative force of the opinion must be estimated by the judge.
References
[1]Asamblea Nacional de la Republica del Ecuador, Código Orgánico Integral Penal. Ecuador, 2014, pp. 1–144.
[2]J. Zavala, “Derecho Constitucional Neoconstitucionalismo y argumentación jurídica,” Foro Rev. Derecho, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 163, 2012.
[3]J. Pérez, Curso de Derecho Constitucional Español, Decimosext. 2018.
[4]J. Vera, “Sobre la relación del Derecho Penal con el Derecho Procesal Penal,” Rev. Chil. Derecho, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 831–855, 2017.
[5]T. Armeta, Lecciones de Derecho Procesal Penal, Decima edi. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2017.
[6]M. Rusconi, “Principio de inocencia e ‘in dubio pro reo,’” Jueces para la Democr., pp. 44–68, 2016.
[7]J.Tisnés, “Presunción de inocencia: principio constitucional absoluto,” Ratio Juris, vol. 7, no. 14, pp. 53–71, 2012.
[8]M. Bustamante and D. Palomo, “La presunción de inocencia como regla de juicio y el estándar de prueba de la duda razonable en el proceso penal. Una lectura desde Colombia y Chile,” Ius Prax., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 651–692, 2018.
[9]F. Ortego, “La delimitación entre el principio ‘in Dubio Pro Reo’ y la presunción de inocencia en el Proceso Penal Español,” Rev. Chil. Derecho y Cienc. Política, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 11–30, 2013.
[10]D. Accatino, “Certezas, dudas y propuestas en torno al estándar de la prueba penal,” Rev. Derecho la Pontifícia Univ. Católica Vaparaiso, pp. 483–511, 2011.