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

Theoretical concepts and jurisprudential antecedents of the patrimonial responsibility of the State for the unjust deprivation of liberty were studied, emphasizing their regimes and titles of attribution. This article seeks to demonstrate that it is not possible to establish as the sole criterion of assessment the objective regime, since the preventive detentions that originate these demands for direct reparation, originate in criminal investigations with individual characteristics that do not allow to generalize their consequences. In conclusion, it is not possible to establish such liability, only on the grounds of the breakdown of public charges, but it is necessary to carry out a more in-depth analysis of the circumstances that gave rise to these claims, based on the presuppositions of the subjective regime.

La responsabilidad objetiva como criterio de valoración en los procesos de reparación directa por privación injusta de la libertad