El recurso de apelación ante los jueces de ejecución de penas y medidas de seguridad un análisis de los caminos procesales

Abstract

This paper will analyze the procedural pathways that arise when, within the framework of monitoring compliance and execution of criminal sentences by the Judges of Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, an appeal is filed against the decisions issued by said judges. To this end, the study will determine whether there is any distinction between the matters ruled upon by a Judge of Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, and how these differences influence the determination of the appropriate procedural route for resolving the appeal. Once the relevance of the nature of the rulings issued by the Judges of Execution of Sentences and Security Measures is established particularly in determining the procedural path to address the appeal and how this criterion proves to be essential by creating a clear divergence in the procedural route we will proceed to examine the potential antinomy resulting from this crossroads. The study will explore whether the existence of different procedural avenues for resolving an appeal constitutes a breach of jurisdictional hierarchies, as well as the solutions proposed by the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence to address this issue. Likewise, this study will address whether the procedural route established to resolve appeals filed against the rulings of the Judges of Execution of Sentences and Security Measures specifically those concerning the granting of penal substitutes fails to respect the functional hierarchy and territorial jurisdiction within the criminal justice system. This research will be conducted through a documentary research method, using a deductive logical approach, which will allow us to reach the specific knowledge set forth in the objectives