La sustitución de la prisión preventiva por el arresto domiciliario de la mujer que se embaraza después de la comisión del delito: criterios para su procedencia
Loading...
Date
2019
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
PUCE - Ibarra
Abstract
La prisión preventiva es una medida cautelar de última ratio, excepcional, que responde a los criterios de necesidad, razonabilidad, proporcionalidad y sobre todo el respeto a la presunción de inocencia que lleva implícito. En la actualidad, se sigue cometiendo arbitrariedades con respecto a esta medida cautelar privativa de libertad, se la utiliza como regla general y no como una excepcionalidad, es así como en nuestra legislación propendiendo el garantismo de los derechos existe la sustitución de la prisión preventiva, a la que cualquier ciudadano puede acogerse, sin embargo, en la actualidad no existe un criterio unificado ya que algunos jueces niegan la sustitución de la prisión preventiva por el arresto domiciliario a las mujeres que se embarazan después de la audiencia de formulación de cargos, y otros la aceptan, sin tomar en cuenta que son un grupo de atención prioritaria con doble vulnerabilidad y merecen la protección estatal tanto para la madre, como para el nasciturus; es evidente que este tema se ha quedado en la invisibilidad, con la investigación se ha intentado esclarecer los criterios de aplicabilidad tanto para la prisión preventiva, cuanto para la sustitución de la misma evitando que se genere vulneración tanto a derechos constitucionales como a la seguridad jurídica. Es necesario que exista una interpretación en pro de los derechos de este grupo ya que, aunque la norma sea facultativa por establecer que el juez podrá dar la sustitución, o no. Nos encontramos ante una laguna legal que puede ser solventada con resoluciones emitidas por la Corte Constitucional, o por una corrección literal de la norma en al que se establezca que se deberá aplicar la sustitución, evitando así la vulneración a los derechos constitucionales y sobre todo evitando una inseguridad jurídica, ya que los jueces son quienes dan certeza jurídica a los ciudadanos ecuatorianos.
The preventive detention is a precautionary measure of ultima ratio, exceptional, which meets the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and above all respect for the presumption of innocence that is implicit. At the present time arbitrariness continues with respect to this precautionary custodial measure, it is used as a general rule and not as an exceptionality, this is how in our legislation procuring the guarantee of rights there is the substitution of preventive detention, a which, any citizen can avail, however at present there is no unified approach, since some judges deny the substitution of preventive detention for house arrest to women who become pregnant after the arraignment hearing, and others accept it, without taking into account that they are a priority attention group with double vulnerability and deserve state protection for both the mother and the nasciturus\; It is evident that this issue has become invisible, with the investigation it has been tried to clarify the criteria of applicability both for preventive detention, and for the substitution of the same, avoiding the violation of both constitutional rights and legal security. . It is necessary that there be an interpretation in favor of the rights of this group, since, although the rule is optional to establish that the judge 'may' give the substitution, or not. We are facing a legal loophole that can be resolved with resolutions issued by the Constitutional Court, or by a literal correction of the rule in which it is established that the 'substitution' should be applied, thus avoiding the violation of constitutional rights and all avoiding legal uncertainty, since they are judges who give legal certainty to Ecuadorian citizens.
The preventive detention is a precautionary measure of ultima ratio, exceptional, which meets the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and above all respect for the presumption of innocence that is implicit. At the present time arbitrariness continues with respect to this precautionary custodial measure, it is used as a general rule and not as an exceptionality, this is how in our legislation procuring the guarantee of rights there is the substitution of preventive detention, a which, any citizen can avail, however at present there is no unified approach, since some judges deny the substitution of preventive detention for house arrest to women who become pregnant after the arraignment hearing, and others accept it, without taking into account that they are a priority attention group with double vulnerability and deserve state protection for both the mother and the nasciturus\; It is evident that this issue has become invisible, with the investigation it has been tried to clarify the criteria of applicability both for preventive detention, and for the substitution of the same, avoiding the violation of both constitutional rights and legal security. . It is necessary that there be an interpretation in favor of the rights of this group, since, although the rule is optional to establish that the judge 'may' give the substitution, or not. We are facing a legal loophole that can be resolved with resolutions issued by the Constitutional Court, or by a literal correction of the rule in which it is established that the 'substitution' should be applied, thus avoiding the violation of constitutional rights and all avoiding legal uncertainty, since they are judges who give legal certainty to Ecuadorian citizens.
Description
Keywords
Sustitución, Medidas cautelares, Nasciturus