1. Prior warning
Since it is a materially impossible task to respond to all imaginable factual hypotheses, here we will address the question raised in those cases in which no corroborating element is available to support what the alleged victim testified.
2. On the necessary analysis of the teaching assets
It is common practice in many investigative courts to issue an order of procedural accommodation (art. 779.1.4ª LECrim) based exclusively on the fact that the complainant claims to have been the victim of a crime – without further ado -, it is not useless to remember that in order for the procedural accommodation to comply with the inspiring principles of our Law of Rites attendance becomes essential necessary rational proof of criminality which allow us to verify indicatively - but with the necessary seriousness – both the commission of an act that presents evidence of a crime and its attribution to the suspect.
It is necessary for a body with judicial functions to consider a future accusation as reasonable (ATS of 31 July 2013).
If any type of dismissal is deemed appropriate, this is the procedurally ideal moment to adopt it, without it being necessary – nor procedurally correct – to wait until the accusations have taken their stand – expressing a formal accusatory claim -, since the instruction does not they serve only to prepare for the oral hearing, but also to avoid opening unnecessary lawsuits (AAP Madrid, 27, 1228/2022, of 26 July).
The logical consequence of all this is that – once the judicial investigations have been concluded – the investigating body must carry out an evaluative judgment, a synthetic analysis of the outcome of how many procedures have been carried out to decide whether the outcome of those The results show the concomitance of the necessary rational indications of delinquency to arrange a procedural accommodation.
To affirm the contrary would mean attributing to the judicial investigation a merely superfluous and inconsistent character, since it would not serve to carry out investigative actions aimed at clarifying the facts which are the subject of the proceeding if the investigating body it does not have the power to evaluate the outcome.
3. Proceedings of a markedly personal nature VS. functions of the teaching body
Any professional who regularly practices in criminal jurisdiction will have been able to appreciate how there are many investigative courts that excuse themselves with an alleged lack of powers to try to justify that it is the accusatory body and not the investigative body that is at stake. responsible for analyzing and evaluating the testimonies and declarations of the suspects.
The previous pretext cannot find a place in a self-respecting criminal system in which the presumption of innocence It is constituted as a rule of treatment that accompanies the passive subject of a criminal proceeding throughout its entire course, and cannot be considered one of the most elementary fundamental rights as a mere rule of judgment that accompanies the already accused only at the moment of issue. judgment (edited by all, ATS of 12 May 2022).
It completely and absolutely is opposite to the fundamental postulates of our criminal procedure law and to the fundamental inspiring principles of the abbreviated procedure according to which the investigative body automatically and uncritically orders the procedural accommodation under the pretext that if there is someone who declares himself the victim of a crime (even without corroborating elements Some) The oral hearing – and not the intermediate phase – is the appropriate procedural moment to evaluate the coherence of the declarations.
It is up to the investigating body and not the investigating body to check the consistency of the alleged evidence necessary for the proceeding to proceed in plenary (for all, AAP Pontevedra, 4ª, 398/2021, of 17 June; AAP Madrid, 27ª, 1837/2019 , of 4 November; ATS of 17 December 2013; AAP BCN, 8, of 3 November 2017; AAP León, 3, 137/2022, of 8 February 2019;
4. Indicative amount required for procedural adaptation
Just the existence of solid, relevant and sufficient evidence They allow the opening of the Oral Process with the consequent distressing contents for those under investigation until then. The requested amount must be mbeyond mere possibility or more or less well-founded suspicion (ATS of 31 July 2013) and must be based on the reasonable probability of the occurrence of the event and of the people who participated in its commission, equating it with the rational indications of a crime required by the art. 384 LECrim, also requiring the reasonable probability of a conviction.
In response to the question raised at the beginning, it is absolutely essential to order the continuation of the proceedings so that what is stated by the complainant is minimally corroborated both as regards the reality of the facts reported and their attribution to the suspects (in everyone’s opinion, AAP Pontevedra, 4ª, 99/2022, of 25 February;
5. Early decision on the crisis
An obligatory consequence of the conception of the presumption of innocence as a rule of treatment and not as a mere rule of judgment (by all, ATS of 12 May 2022) is that if the declaration of the confirmed victim does notor is minimally ascertained both regarding the existence of the crime itself and regarding the paternity of the suspect In none of its aspects – neither essential nor peripheral -, the accuser’s statement itself can never reach the level of a single rational indication of criminality that allows a procedural accommodation (AAP León, 3ª, 137/2022, of 8 February).
When, from the analysis of the investigative body, a well-founded prediction of the inapplicability of the conviction can be drawn due to the insufficiency of available evidentiary material – deriving from the absence of rational clues to the crime – an early termination of the procedure must be arranged, since the investigative phase serves not only to prepare a hypothetical oral trial, but also to avoid the useless holding of trials destined to fail from an ex ante point of view (AAP Valladolid, 2ª, 359/2022, of 18 July).
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Procedural Safeguards in Criminal Justice
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today. We’re diving into a critical aspect of criminal justice that speaks to the delicate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring justice for victims. Can you start by explaining the concept of “procedural accommodation” and its importance in a legal context?
Legal Expert: Good afternoon! Procedural accommodation refers to the judicial authority to adapt procedural rules based on initial claims made by a complainant. Essentially, it means that when a complaint is filed, the judicial body must evaluate whether there’s enough preliminary evidence to warrant proceeding with the case. This is crucial because it protects individuals from being wrongfully accused without substantial evidence while still allowing victims to seek recourse.
Editor: Absolutely, that makes sense. However, you’ve pointed out that sometimes courts engage in procedural accommodation based solely on the complainant’s assertions. Why is it important for judicial bodies to go beyond just taking someone’s word for it?
Expert: This is a key issue. Relying solely on a complainant’s statements without corroborating evidence can lead to miscarriages of justice. The law mandates that there should be “necessary rational proof of criminality.” This means that before a case progresses, there needs to be a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed. It ensures that judicial investigations are meaningful and not just a box-checking exercise.
Editor: You mentioned the need for “necessary rational indications” in evaluating cases. How does this concept interplay with the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal justice?
Expert: The presumption of innocence is fundamental to our legal system. It asserts that every individual is innocent until proven guilty. When investigative courts issue procedural accommodations without a thorough evaluation, they undermine this principle. The victims’ claims deserve respect and investigation, but the rights and dignity of the accused must also be upheld throughout the process. Therefore, a careful balance is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Editor: It’s fascinating how these components interact. However, there seems to be a tendency in some courts to defer the responsibility of evidence evaluation to the prosecution. Would you elaborate on that?
Expert: Certainly. Some courts argue that it is the responsibility of the prosecution, as the accusatory body, to analyze evidence before the trial. However, this perspective can be detrimental. It’s essential for the investigative body to take an active role in assessing the evidence and ensuring there’s a substantive basis for proceeding. Their failure to do so can result in unwarranted trials and, ultimately, harm to innocent individuals.
Editor: Understood. Now, regarding the evidentiary threshold required for moving forward with a case, what does the legal framework specify?
Expert: The legal framework requires more than just a suspicion or a possibility of a crime. It demands “solid, relevant, and sufficient evidence” to open an oral process. The indicators must show a reasonable probability of the alleged crime occurring and the involvement of the accused. In other words, the evidence must demonstrate that a trial is warranted; otherwise, it could create significant distress for those under investigation, many of whom may be innocent.
Editor: Thank you for that clarity. can you share your thoughts on how these principles reflect on the larger picture of criminal justice reform?
Expert: Absolutely. These principles highlight the need for ongoing reform and vigilance within our legal systems. We must ensure that the rights of all parties are preserved—victims and the accused alike. A more stringent approach in evaluating claims can prevent wrongful accusations and ensure that genuine victims have their voices heard while upholding the integrity of the judicial process. As we continue to examine these issues in society, it remains vital that legal frameworks adapt and improve to serve justice effectively.
Editor: Thank you very much for your insights today. The conversation about procedural safeguards in criminal justice is incredibly relevant, and your expertise sheds light on the complexities involved. We appreciate your time!
Expert: Thank you for having me! It’s been a pleasure discussing these important issues with you.