La instrucción penal en un proceso con todas las garantías: ¿por qué no debería instruir el fiscal?The criminal instruction in a process with all the guarantees: why should not the prosecutor instruct?
- 1 Doctor en Derecho procesal. Abogado
ISSN: 1889-4380
Year of publication: 2020
Issue: 10
Type: Article
More publications in: Revista Aranzadi Doctrinal
Abstract
The author defends the current examining magistrate model. An investigating judge, collector of vestiges who does not prosecute or prejudge but, after closing the investigation of the allegedly criminal acts, independently and neutrally, appreciates or not the existence of evidence of criminality. Due to its immovable nature, it is impervious to the executive power, the current investigating judge is a guarantee of impartiality, of full compliance with the presumption of innocence and equality of arms and of sole subject to the Law. The current legal configuration of the Public Prosecutor's Office as a body subject to the Principle of hierarchy and unity of action, appointed by a Attorney General proposed by the Government, is clearly placed under the executive branch.
Bibliographic References
- CARRETERO SÁNCHEZ, Adolfo, El pretendido fin del juez instructor, Madrid, 2017, pág. 4.
- MARTIN PALLIN, Jose Antonio, ¿Tiene futuro el juez de instrucción?, ADUAM 5 (2001), págs. 153.
- MARTÍN OSTOS, José, Por una fiscalía independiente, Diario El Mundo, Madrid, 9 de marzo de 2020, pág. 17.
- NARVÁEZ RODRÍGUEZ, Antonio. “La investigación penal por el Ministerio Fiscal: argumentos a favor”. Estudios Jurídicos del Ministerio Fiscal VI–1998. Ministerio de Justicia. Madrid. 1998. Pág. 125.
- NIEVA FENOLL, Jordi, Fundamentos de Derecho procesal penal, Buenos Aires, 2012, pág. 100.