Criminal Justice and its guarantee
Introduction
Faced with a legal process, due process is the fundamental principle by which every State must respect liberties and legal rights that every person accused of committing a crime before the law in this case in this case the Panamanian law. The due process aims to consolidate a fair and balanced result within the judicial process of the accused; So it gives guarantees to the accused of enforcing his rights and freedoms.
This is how it comes to guarantee with this instrument, protecting individuals from the promulgation of policies for the majority that, in one way or another, transfer what the government has. Therefore, if due process is not fulfilled, a violation of the rights of the subject, an unfair or contrary to the law can be committed.
Developing
While it is true, to achieve the fair result, sometimes you have to be unfair to any of the parties, but when the due process is fulfilled, justice would be distributed in the case for the failure of the same. By allowing the accused to present what is necessary within his fundamental rights, he raises his voice and debates against the disagreements that arise; Then at the time of making a decision, the two faces of the currency would have been seen to be able to make a decision.
So if there is no due process within the case, you cannot have a right result in the eyes of society or the law in general. When ignoring the provisions of our code and laws, compliance with the right of an individual who can presume guilty, but is actually innocent, is being violated.
Ricardo Martinelli won the presidential elections in 2010 until 2014 of the Republic of Panama. The period of his period is completed, he is prosecuted by the alleged commission of crimes against the inviolability of secret and the right to privacy telephone punctures. The Martinelli case was carried out by 3 judges: Roberto Tejeira, Arlene Caballero and Raúl Vergara absolute the former president for the positions of political espionage and embezzlement of funds, given the obvious violation of due process. The complainants announced that they will present new actions.
The lawyer and director of the Usma Law Faculty, was pronouncing her concern for the country’s justice system; She expresses it like that: one of the central problems is that there are interim judges who came to office not for a career contest. We need to join forces so that we do not continue with judges who should not be administering justice, but are violating the law.
Under this fallacy ad personam in a circumstantial attack, the interim judges who did not study law in the university as their professional career is directed; and clearly specifies that they cannot be within the Panamanian justice for their lack of judicial procedural knowledge. Yes, we need to join forces so that the justice system in the country changes, the cases of white collar be taken with greater importance and follow the letter what the Panamanian law establishes; as is done in cases where a subject steals a cell phone or a cow of a farm.
At the time of failure, the Court of Judgment only had to condemn or acquit the accused; The true outburst here was to reject the evidence. And these judges learned what the magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice taught them. Now witnesses, protected witness, complainants and the officials of the Public Ministry would be committing the crime of slander and perjury for having lied to an honorable court of trial harming the honesty of an honorable lord who once said publicly that he has not stolen a real state fucking. Apparently in Panama we will continue to have black history for a while.
This argument about the causes, presents premises of pain with respect to what is acquitted in the case, having as effect a black story for the bad justice that was taken, as explained by the lawyer and anonymous professor. Survey of a student of Law and Political Sciences of the Third Year of the Faculty of Law of the USMA:
In all judicial processes, the sentence must be carried out with what the parties present within said process. If a judge fails a case with evidence that they never presented, the process would not be given in the corresponding way and as a consequence it cannot be failed and in case he did, he would be overreach from his functions as a judge.
Another very important point is the presumption of innocence, prosecutors spoke a lot that the Court was inclined to find it not guilty, misunderstanding the work of the three judges. At all times, those present in the process had knowledge of the presumption of innocence about the accused. I agree because the case was made in pure right, first than in fact; The decision of the judges was based on the principles of procedural law.
Answer: making a good decision that goes hand in hand with justice, is the basis of democracy and therefore, a clean and good justice also holds the economic scope of the country, which is what supports us. If the criminal process of a defendant is violated, the ignorance of evidence and lack of rights, would also put the economic image of the country at risk. Once again the Court shows us, which the one who has the most, is the one that can.
conclusion
Justice cannot continue to be selective in our country, it cannot be that a person who, out of necessity, a package of food or a bacca which is perfect because it must be penalized; But, cases of greater magnitude, where many people were offended and mocked by the crimes that were blamed.
This Martinelli case only shows us the inefficiency and little credibility of the justice system. External factors were those that made Martinelli today not convicted and is free. Beyond the criminal and judicial matter, we must create ties to build the institutionality of the State organs that are so badly seen. From the civil society in which some students participate, we should.
Leave feedback