All lawyers and even law students, especially the recent cycles know that the Challenge of the judges are governed by Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We're talking about the challenge on grounds . This is very clear. If a judge is within these grounds, and that nevertheless it is not inhibited, the remedy to tell him apart from hearing the case, recused. And indeed, if this challenge has been tested with indubitable document has to be declared unfounded.
But what if the magistrate is not of these causes.? We could not challenge. And then the judge will have to continue hearing the case. However, the adjective Code of 1940 still in force here in Lima, provides that if we can challenge the judge on grounds of manifest partiality, as foreseen in art. 31 of the legal body bounded adjective. But then we understand on reasonable grounds that show a clear bias of Judge? 
According to the Criminal Procedural Law scholars say that grounds are systematic procedural acts in criminal proceedings, the judge made that harm to a party, and favors the other. Here comes the problem. Here the crux of the matter. What are these acts? Standard eye and says that these acts must be shown. This is worth some provincial prosecutors that when he runs trasalado Judge for the challenge, prosecutors generally believe that the challenge is unfounded. And the judges usually also provided these challenges on grounds founded the claim unfounded. This is the judicial practice. Then ask for that is this article in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Embellishment. A caramelito.
No. It is not by choice. If this body of law does not indicate clearly what these grounds, we believe that these acts prcesales systematic, for example would not notify litigants and properly due to attend the proceedings intra process. Do not allow the lawyer to read the file on the grounds that criminal proceedings are reserved. Not properly notify the decree provides for the parties to the opinion of Mr. Attorney Provincial. Failure to provide the letters in the word which marks the art. Unique and 153 of the Order of the Judicial Power Organization Act, but if it provides fast only one party. Get the judge in his office the lawyer for one party, but the lawyer of the other party. Ie is very flexible with a party, and the other will hinder your defense, blocked. Another such is is a party to Civil agriavado accordance with paragraph 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also empowers him to be present and ask questions in the statements of the other party and witnesses, when in reality he is entitled to be present diliegncias in and ask questions through their lawyer is the defendant in accordance coln Articles 157 and 158 of the limited.
These are reasonable grounds? For me yes. If you are serious grounds for disqualification of a judge. But these judges go on a tangent, and are shielded by saying that they do not report therefore can not be ascribe their motives to them. No. For me they are serious reasons. Judges because they are responsible for all of the criminal proceedings. And not taquito pass that responsibility to the secretaries. Why, because the judges in accordance with art. 49 of C. PP are or is the Director of Prosecution, and I do not come with the excuse that these acts are not reasonable grounds.
This is the classic move by the judges and not want to release the record. That is provided they are right. There are the grounds of manifest partiality, but as odd as judges. To do so as trial lawyers? For two letters insisting own merit and evidence. And if evidences the persistence report them to the OCMA, National Judicial Council, and finally to the press, because we can not allow some judges lively Creole / wimps distort the essence of procedural and legal institutions to the Ministry of wander Defense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment