Your browser does not support HTML5 audio
yesterday friday Members of Congress from the Fuerza Popular Bench They proposed a bill “is prohibitedTo request and issue a warrant to “lawyers and judges.” Preliminary Judicial Restraint and Detention (…), under operational responsibility”, against the responsible police officers “Injury or Death” In carrying out their functions.
The legislative initiative was authored by him Fujimoriist Member of Parliament Victor Flores Ruiz, And six other congressmen from that bench signed on: Fernando Rospigliosi, Arturo Alegria, Hector Ventura, Eduardo Castillo, Nilsa Chacon Y Merry Infants.
The initiative amends two articles of the Criminal Procedure Code and consolidates two more “ to prevent In line with their constitutional mandate, the lawyer seeks preliminary arrest and remand against the police in a situation where they operate in cadres. Uses his weapons or defense mechanisms In a regulatory manner; And, consequently, some injury or death.”
We recommend you
What does the bill propose and what are its bases?
According to the plan, its purpose is “to protect the rights to freedom, presumption of innocence, Due process and effective jurisdictional protection for PNP personnel in the exercise of their constitutional mandate; Any injury or death while using their weapons or means of defense in a disciplined manner”.
“Freedom of action is necessary to achieve the constitutional objectives of the personnel of the National Police of Peru and Cannot proceed indefinitely By Legal Consequences It will lead to: Preliminary Prevention and Preventive Prevention”, highlights the initiative.
In this sense, if the police “act decisively, proportionately, fulfill their constitutional purpose, and cause minor or fatal injury to their adversary”, a judicial process will be opened “and it will end. Breaking his presumption of innocencea” Preliminary detention or preventive detention.
Based on this, he notes that these legal processes “can produce a r.”“Reservation Action” Oh “One Reluctance“When conducting police operations, it can “lead to failure” Constitutional Objectives of the PNP.
The bill was authored by Fujimori Congressman Victor FloresSource: Republican Congress
“So, there is a need Security (PNP) employees in their attitude, concentration and Action width To exercise its constitutional functions while exercising its arms or means of defense in an orderly manner; Limitation of action powers of attorney, “His criminal responsibility is not determined by punishment, but prevents him from seeking restriction of personal liberty through the compulsory measure of preliminary detention or detention,” the scheme underlines.
At another time, he mentions “need”. Remove obstacles“Police may have” so they have Independence To exercise their constitutional functions fearlessly Future Retaliation Against them can come: preliminary detention and detention.” That is, if they are prosecuted for injury or death resulting from their duties, “they should remain free until the relevant criminal process decides. Guilty verdictHe or she is not in a detention or penal institution”.
Another benefit that Congressman Flores cited to justify his plan is that it contributes Overcrowding of prison institutions In the country”, thus “there will be more policemen on the streets, because they will not be imprisoned until they are convicted.
“It is an unconstitutional bill.”
Regarding the legislative scheme, RPP talked with Juan Jose Guispe, criminal lawyer, who considered it an initiative”Unconstitutional“, which would be against the prerogatives of the Public Ministry and the Judiciary.
“The section that says that the prosecutor and the judge are prohibited from requesting and granting detention under preliminary detention and operational liability (…) First, it is against autonomy. Public Ministry; Second, it attacks autonomy Authorized person. Third, in practice Tie hands to the justice system before a police officer who, under the pretext of fighting crime, commits crimes such as aggravated murder or grievous bodily harm in the execution of his duties,” he pointed out.
“It also restricts the Magistrate to do a A typical description These laws. He cannot do it because his hands are tied, he cannot impose and the lawyer cannot ask for it because even if it is true, international norms and treaties must be followed. Judgments of the Inter-American Court, Here they say that they are going to open Administrative and Regulatory Procedure It will lead to his dismissal,” he added.
Likewise, in the lawyer's program “there is not a letter about the international agreements and conventions that Peru refers to as a result of being part of the Inter-American Human Rights Organization (SIDH). Constitution, Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code”.
Lawyer Juan José Quispe considered the plan unconstitutional Source: Andina
“This rule is unconstitutional because, even if it is true, the police have constitutional objectives, so the public ministry, the judiciary and the police cannot be given a concession under the pretext of killing people to guarantee public peace. And continue to work. As if nothing happened, the processes in the justice system We know how long it takes, and you will only be admitted to a penal institution if you have already been convicted,” he noted.
Likewise, the legal expert pointed out that the plan does not indicate “what percentage or how many police officers (…) are prosecuted or detained nationally.”
“Neither is that Weighted Constitutional rights. The ultimate goal of the state save life People (…), and until this process is over here people are going to kill with signs of injury or impunity, we're creating police officers with apparent impunity for killing, and they're going to continue to operate despite their existence. “In the course of their operation, commit crimes such as torture or extrajudicial execution, which are already covered by the regulations,” he asserted.
“We want to guarantee that the PNP will not be punished in all cases, not just in cases of shooting, except for criminal responsibility, Article 20, paragraph 11. The constitutional powers of the Ministry of Public Affairs or the Department of Justice,” he added.
Also, Juan José Quispe denied that preliminary detention or detention is “a breach of the presumption of innocence.”
“The presumption of innocence Breaks a final court decision. “What pretrial detention and detention do is to restrict some form of freedom under certain parameters established in criminal procedure standards,” he explained.
Finally, he held that a police officer who has involuntarily injured or killed a person may use his position to obstruct investigations, as he cannot be subject to preliminary arrest or detention.
“If a police officer continues to be active, he continues to work with his other colleagues as if nothing happened (…), this is a clear element, evidence that he will hinder the functioning of the public ministry. He can intimidate. Witnesses, coerce them, intimidate or buy, destroy evidence. ,” he said.
“That is very dangerous because if we are going to kill a police officer and continue in the police station or the police department as if nothing happened, we give the police a special position during the constitution. …) It means that we are equal before the law,” he said.
