Análisis de la prisión preventiva en los casos Odebrecht: la aplicación del Acuerdo Plenario 01-2019
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2020-10-14
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
En el presente trabajo, se plantea la problemática respecto a la aplicación de la prisión
preventiva en casos de relevancia nacional como los de la trama Odebrecht (Keiko
Fujimori Higuchi, Luis Castañeda Lossio y el caso árbitros), emitidos tras la publicación
del Acuerdo Plenario 01-19, pues éste último realiza un desarrollo pormenorizado de los
requisitos legales para la imposición de la prisión preventiva, intentando solucionar el
cuestionable uso excesivo y erróneo de esta medida excepcional. Para realizar el
análisis, estos estándares se utilizan como indicadores de cumplimiento, denominados
de la siguiente manera: sospecha fuerte, gravedad del delito, peligrosismo procesal,
juicio de imputación, uso de declaraciones de postulantes y colaboradores eficaces,
plazo de la prisión preventiva, examen de proporcionalidad, motivación y audiencia de
prisión preventiva. Se encuentra que solo un auto realiza de forma suficiente el juicio de
imputación: el de Keiko Fujimori. Solo este último logra sustentar con sospecha grave la
participación de la imputada, realiza el examen de gravedad del delito, fundamenta el
peligro de obstaculización y el peligro de fuga, cumple con motivar adecuadamente y
realiza la corroboración externa de las declaraciones de postulantes y colaboradores
eficaces. Además, se encuentra que, a diferencia de los demás autos analizados, el de
Castañeda no fundamenta la razonabilidad del plazo de prisión preventiva. Se evidencia
también que existe un problema respecto del análisis de proporcionalidad pues ningún
auto desarrolla de forma satisfactoria este examen. Por último, el único indicador que se
cumple de forma satisfactoria por los 3 autos es el de las formalidades y requisitos de la
audiencia de prisión preventiva. En suma, la aplicación de la prisión preventiva en los
casos analizados demuestra falencias en su uso por la inobservancia de los estándares
esgrimidos en el Acuerdo Plenario y la intromisión de motivos extrapenales que justifican
la imposición de la medida.
In this work, the problem regarding the application of preventive detention in cases of national relevance such as those of the Odebrecht plot (Keiko Fujimori Higuchi, Luis Castañeda Lossio and the arbitrators' case), published after the emission of the Plenary Agreement 01 -19, this one makes a detailed development of the legal requirements for the imposition of preventive detention, trying to solve the questionable excessive and erroneous use of this exceptional measure. To carry out the analysis, these standards are used as indicators of compliance, named as follows: strong suspicion, the seriousness of the crime, procedural dangerousness, impeachment trial, use of statements by effective applicants and collaborators, the term of preventive detention, the examination of proportionality, motivation and pretrial detention hearing. Only one case sufficiently carries out the imputation trial: that of Keiko Fujimori, this is the only one that achieved sustain with serious suspicion the participation of the accused, performs the serious examination of the crime, bases the danger of obstruction and the danger of runaway complies with the required motivation and performs external corroboration of the statements of effective applicants and collaborators. Furthermore, it is found that, unlike the other cases analyzed, Castañeda's case does not substantiate the reasonableness of the period of preventive detention. It is also evident that there is a problem concerning the proportionality analysis, as non case accomplish satisfactorily this test. Finally, the only indicator that is satisfactorily accomplished by the 3 cases is that of the formalities and requirements of the pretrial detention hearing. In sum, the application of preventive detention in the cases analyzed shows flaws in its use due to the non-observance of the standards used in the AP and the intrusion of extra-criminal reasons that justify the imposition of the measure.
In this work, the problem regarding the application of preventive detention in cases of national relevance such as those of the Odebrecht plot (Keiko Fujimori Higuchi, Luis Castañeda Lossio and the arbitrators' case), published after the emission of the Plenary Agreement 01 -19, this one makes a detailed development of the legal requirements for the imposition of preventive detention, trying to solve the questionable excessive and erroneous use of this exceptional measure. To carry out the analysis, these standards are used as indicators of compliance, named as follows: strong suspicion, the seriousness of the crime, procedural dangerousness, impeachment trial, use of statements by effective applicants and collaborators, the term of preventive detention, the examination of proportionality, motivation and pretrial detention hearing. Only one case sufficiently carries out the imputation trial: that of Keiko Fujimori, this is the only one that achieved sustain with serious suspicion the participation of the accused, performs the serious examination of the crime, bases the danger of obstruction and the danger of runaway complies with the required motivation and performs external corroboration of the statements of effective applicants and collaborators. Furthermore, it is found that, unlike the other cases analyzed, Castañeda's case does not substantiate the reasonableness of the period of preventive detention. It is also evident that there is a problem concerning the proportionality analysis, as non case accomplish satisfactorily this test. Finally, the only indicator that is satisfactorily accomplished by the 3 cases is that of the formalities and requirements of the pretrial detention hearing. In sum, the application of preventive detention in the cases analyzed shows flaws in its use due to the non-observance of the standards used in the AP and the intrusion of extra-criminal reasons that justify the imposition of the measure.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Detención preventiva--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Procedimiento penal--Jurisprudencia--Perú., Odebrecht Perú (Firma)
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess