SEVILLA, 24 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) -
Juvenile Judge No. 1, Alejandro Vian, has refused to refer to the Constitutional Tribunal (TC) requested the issue of unconstitutionality private prosecution by holding the girl's family Seville Marta del Castillo, missing and presumed murdered the night of 24 to 25 January 2009 in a house of Leo XIII, in order that the child known as the 'Cuckoo' be tried at the same time that the four older defendants.
In an order issued last March 22, has had access to Europa Press, the judge shows that "there is no need to raise" the issue to TC "on the grounds that Article 16.5 of Organic Law Regulating Criminal Responsibility of Minors is not contrary to our constitutional text, "an order from which not possible to appeal any "without prejudice to the right of the parties to reproduce the issue on second and subsequent instances."
In this sense, the judge tells you what is questioned by the private prosecution is the constitutionality of a provision "that causes the immediate effect of opening for a same offenses in two separate avenues of instruction and, if the holding of two trials and the issuance of two different sentences, after which "question" whether the particular charge "really is intimate and firm conviction that that provision may be contrary to our Constitution or by using the mechanism the question unconstitutional as a legal tool at its disposal "in order that no court reaches a decision against the child until there is no ruling against the elderly.
After acknowledging his" respectable and legitimate interests, "the judge said he" can not question that that Article 16.5 is not a standard applied by this judge, its operation depends on the validity of the decision handed down, since it is a standard that is aimed at examining magistrate during the investigation stage and what can not be justified by the private prosecution is to present the issue citing that article the same day appointed for the holding of the hearing. "
TRIAL TO 'Cuckoo', "perfectly constitutional"
This, he adds, "while he has been a private legal action in both proceedings, speaking and requesting the adoption of the measures it deemed relevant to its right, without have even raised the possible unconstitutionality of the entire pretrial phase and intermediate phase practiced, "while asserting that the existence of a specific criminal procedure for children and differential criminal procedure for the elderly" is not only unconstitutional, but it is perfectly constitutional. "
Both the child's lawyer accused and the prosecution had already decided against raising this question, then, in the case of Public Prosecutions, argued that "the regulation of dual jurisdiction breaks the principle of legal certainty," for defaults with absolute precision the procedural rules applicable when a criminal act involving older and younger than 18 years, so irrelevant generic invoking constitutional principle of legal certainty. "
In this regard, the prosecution asserted that "the regulation of dual jurisdiction is not only unconstitutional but is fully consistent with the provisions of Article 39.4 of the English Constitution" adding that "if the legal provision was that if they were found involved adults and children will follow a single procedure before the jurisdiction of adults, yes that would be generated doubts about its constitutionality."
dual system of jurisdiction
"maintain - as does the private prosecution - the system of dual jurisdiction is unconstitutional unconstitutional would also consider the possibility that, in criminal proceedings against a number of seniors , they are prosecuted separately when handling contingencies so demand "argues the Attorney General, adding that "it is clear that, in general, a case against several persons may lead to trials when there are several procedural obstacle to the prosecution together, and therefore to several sentences."
In line says that "it is well established since time immemorial, not only in the English criminal procedure, but in all the countries around us legal culture", after which he summarizes by stating that "the criminal court judges adults do it with full jurisdiction and without being connected to what may decide the Juvenile Court on the child when deciding on the guilt of those. "
adds that "the fact that the system of double jeopardy this complex practical problems - it is clear that the show - no basis whatsoever for questioning its constitutionality, "and says that" one thing that can be improved the existing regulatory system and another that is unconstitutional. "
"SATISFACTION" THE CHILD ADVOCATE
For his part, counsel for the 'Cuckoo', Fernando de Pablo, expressed his satisfaction at the fact that the judge has rejected this question, then, commented to reporters , "it would leave us without a sentence even in a lot of years." "The unconstitutionality would have created a serious problem, has ruled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment