| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.21 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente dissertação de Mestrado Profissionalizante visa aferir se os processos penais nos quais é declarada a excepcional complexidade cumprem os requisitos do processo equitativo, consagrados na Constituição da República Portuguesa e na Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem, em particular que critérios devem ser considerados pelos sujeitos processuais para que a decisão que põe termo ao processo seja proferida em prazo razoável. Inicialmente analisamos os princípios constitucionais de processo penal e do arguido, nomeadamente os decorrentes dos artigos 20.º e 32.º da Constituição da República Portuguesa, tais como o direito do arguido à defesa, o princípio da presunção da inocência, o princípio in dúbio pro reo e também o direito ao recurso efectivo.
Nos termos da lei processual penal portuguesa, a competência para a prolação de decisão que decreta a excepcional complexidade pertence aos Tribunais de 1.ª Instância, podendo ser proferida ex officio ou mediante requerimento do Ministério Público, depois de ouvido o arguido e o assistente. Para fundamentar a excepcional complexidade o Tribunal emprega critérios específicos, alguns dos quais estabelecidos na lei processual penal, designadamente o elevado número de arguidos ou de ofendidos e o carácter altamente organizado do crime. No entanto, a parca definição de “excepcional complexidade” da lei imprime uma necessária integração jurisprudencial de critérios que são, também eles, susceptíveis de converter os autos em particularmente complexos. Deste modo, a jurisprudência considera atendíveis critérios como o modus operandi, o carácter sofisticado e técnico do crime e meios de prova utilizados na investigação, a dispersão geográfica e temporal do crime ou o tempo necessário para a conclusão do inquérito. Declarada a excepcional complexidade, os prazos processuais são em regra prorrogados, o que sucede quanto ao prazo máximo de duração da prisão preventiva, mas também nos prazos máximos de duração de inquérito e nos prazos para apresentação de peças processuais.
Posteriormente, explanamos quais os direitos que segundo o artigo 6.º da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem se devem efectivar para que um processo apreciado por um tribunal independente e imparcial consubstancie um
processo equitativo, nomeadamente o respeito pelo direito do arguido a ser informado da acusação e de dispor de tempo e de meios adequados à preparação da sua defesa, o direito a ser representado por defensor, a inquirir as testemunhas e o direito à tradução do processo. Enunciamos ainda os critérios empregues pela jurisprudência do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos do Homem para aferir se uma decisão proferida por um tribunal de um Estado Contratante respeitou os critérios do prazo razoável para proferir decisão.
Por fim, atendendo à prática jurisdicional portuguesa actual, sugerimos medidas concretas para assegurar a celeridade dos processos penais de excepcional complexidade.
This Master’s dissertation goal is to assess if a judicial process judge by the Portuguese’s criminal courts in which was pronounced the court decision providing the outstanding complexity of the case can equally fulfill the criteria of the fair trail upon the Portuguese’s Constitution and the European Human Rights Convention, in particular the reasonable time required to the Court pronounce the final decision on the case. Firstly we describe some of the rights in accordance with article 20 of the Portuguese’s Constitution such as the accused’s defense, the presumption of innocence , in dubio pro reo principle, the resolution of the dispute in a timely manner and the right to an effective remedy. It happens that, in the Portuguese’s criminal procedure the court ex officio or in result to a previous requirement of the public prosecution, can pronounce the outstanding complexity of the case. However it can only be pronounce by the trial court in a reasoned decision and after hearing the accused and other parts involved otherwise, if the court considered that the application requirements were satisfied. Despite the Portuguese’s criminal procedure does not describe the criteria of application in which cases could be verified the outstanding complexity, it does enumerate situations that, just as the large number of accused or victims that if happens to be realized can lead to the court’s pronounce. At the same analyzing the jurisprudence we are able to establish other complementary circumstances: the sophisticated modus operandi, geographical or temporal dispersion or the time required to close the investigation. In result to this, the procedural deadlines are extended as well as maximum time of the provisional detention. In addition, we go through the article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention dedicated to the right to a fair trial judged by an independent and impartial tribunal and the rights in it enshrined, essentially the right to be informed about the accusation, to have time and proper facilities for the defense, to be assisted by lawyer, to examine the witnesses and to benefit from an interpreter, in order to fully understand the maters and procedures of the cause. To finalized this chapter we enunciate the criteria employed by the European Court of Human Rights concerning to the reasonable time to pronounce a decision by the national court. Finally, although the necessity of analyses in the concrete situations of the case, if theoretically a case of outstanding complexity can be fair trial, in its practical application the Portuguese’s court extend the time limit considered as reasonable time length of the procedural requirements, reason why we consider that the maximum limit of witness to be examine can be reduce as well as the agreement to reduce the punishment or the investigation by the defense, mainly because there is no justice – an no respect of the constitutions’ and conventions’ basic rights – in a judicial decision that takes too long to be pronounce.
This Master’s dissertation goal is to assess if a judicial process judge by the Portuguese’s criminal courts in which was pronounced the court decision providing the outstanding complexity of the case can equally fulfill the criteria of the fair trail upon the Portuguese’s Constitution and the European Human Rights Convention, in particular the reasonable time required to the Court pronounce the final decision on the case. Firstly we describe some of the rights in accordance with article 20 of the Portuguese’s Constitution such as the accused’s defense, the presumption of innocence , in dubio pro reo principle, the resolution of the dispute in a timely manner and the right to an effective remedy. It happens that, in the Portuguese’s criminal procedure the court ex officio or in result to a previous requirement of the public prosecution, can pronounce the outstanding complexity of the case. However it can only be pronounce by the trial court in a reasoned decision and after hearing the accused and other parts involved otherwise, if the court considered that the application requirements were satisfied. Despite the Portuguese’s criminal procedure does not describe the criteria of application in which cases could be verified the outstanding complexity, it does enumerate situations that, just as the large number of accused or victims that if happens to be realized can lead to the court’s pronounce. At the same analyzing the jurisprudence we are able to establish other complementary circumstances: the sophisticated modus operandi, geographical or temporal dispersion or the time required to close the investigation. In result to this, the procedural deadlines are extended as well as maximum time of the provisional detention. In addition, we go through the article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention dedicated to the right to a fair trial judged by an independent and impartial tribunal and the rights in it enshrined, essentially the right to be informed about the accusation, to have time and proper facilities for the defense, to be assisted by lawyer, to examine the witnesses and to benefit from an interpreter, in order to fully understand the maters and procedures of the cause. To finalized this chapter we enunciate the criteria employed by the European Court of Human Rights concerning to the reasonable time to pronounce a decision by the national court. Finally, although the necessity of analyses in the concrete situations of the case, if theoretically a case of outstanding complexity can be fair trial, in its practical application the Portuguese’s court extend the time limit considered as reasonable time length of the procedural requirements, reason why we consider that the maximum limit of witness to be examine can be reduce as well as the agreement to reduce the punishment or the investigation by the defense, mainly because there is no justice – an no respect of the constitutions’ and conventions’ basic rights – in a judicial decision that takes too long to be pronounce.
Description
Keywords
Direito penal Direitos do arguido Prazo razoável Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem Teses de mestrado - 2019