English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although criminal indictment control should be a measure to protect the fundamental rights of those accused of crimes, insomuch as it limits the prosecutor’s discretion and requires him or her to focus on legally relevant facts and evidence obtained legally, this is not carried out in Colombian criminal procedure because there is no legal precept that regulates or institutes it. To fill this legal gap and guarantee the right to due process and the proper administration of justice, the Supreme Court of Justice proposes the control be carried out by a presiding judge. This article analyzes whether the posture the Criminal Cassation Chamber adopted in its Judgment of December 11, 2018 complies with the premises of social democratic rule of law and the objectives of criminal procedure law. It concludes that the response the Court offers for the resolution of the problems caused by the lack of indictment control is insufficient, as if the presiding judge exercises this control, he or she will be contaminated with the facts and the evidence that structures the prosecutor’s charges prior to the oral trial and to the presentation of the defense’s theory of the case. This violates the impartiality of the trial, as it gives the prosecutor a second opportunity to correct his or her errors, which violates the equality of the parties to the process.

Análisis: control de la acusación. Sentencia del 11 de diciembre de 2018, corte Suprema de Justicia