Hechos Jurídicamente Relevantes y su Correcta Delimitación

Abstract

The juridically relevant facts are a judiciary category built to serve as a basis to the execution of the penal process because it establishes the course of each action according to the process stage that is limited and sets out the basis for the oral trial, for this reason it is mandatory to have a correct delimitation of these facts to guarantee an adequate execution of the penal process. Identified repeated shortcomings from the General Attorney in the imputation and accusation stages in front of the determination and communication of the juridically relevant facts, the Supreme Court of Justice got involved to determine what they are about, their due delimitation and exposure, from the judiciary standpoint, and it distinguished the other processing categories.

The juridically relevant facts are those that the General Attorney determines as such once an investigation has been performed leading the General Attorney to a standard understanding that entitles them to proceed with an imputation (this is a reasonable inference from ownership or participation) or to accuse (this is an affirmation with probability of truth on the occurrence of a criminal behavior and its authorship) and once its typical customization has been reviewed, these facts make up the factual and judiciary premise of the trial given that they constitute the basis for the evidence, the defense and any agreements reached out with the General Attorney.

Therefore, it’s worth noting that it’s required that in every opportunity, these facts are referred to in a clear and succinct manner, distinguishing them from the indicative facts and the material elements of the evidence. As a consequence, the materialization of the principle of congruence, the progressiveness of the penal and legality processes will be duly defined. On the other hand, the judge has the responsibility to guarantee that the trial is developed based on judiciary relevant facts presented by the General Attorney, because as the director of the hearings, the judge exercises a formal control, and even though it is banned from exercising a material control over the party’s actions, in case the judge identifies serious impacts over the fundamental rights, the judge has to inquire the General Attorney to adjust the accusation and imputation or any agreement reached upon.

Finally, one of the most significant aspects regarding the due limitation of the juridically relevant facts from the General Attorney is that the defense will base the factual appointment that is presented, for this reason it’s mandatory for this appointment to be complete and comprehensible so that the accused can make a decision on whether or not to accept them or to initiate a negotiation with the General Attorney.