Regulación de la comunicación oportuna de circunstancias, como requisito para solicitar la prolongación de la prisión preventiva

Abstract

La presente exploración científica versa respecto la cuestionable regulación contenida en el artículo 274 del Código Adjetivo Penal que permite la posibilidad que una vez declarada la prisión preventiva; el Ministerio Público no ejecute las diligencias necesarias para la investigación, o bien no sean las suficientes para lograr la finalidad de ésta, dejando transcurrir el tiempo de duración de la medida cautelar procesal de índole personal y justamente al estar ad portas de su finalización, recién el titular del ejercicio de la acción penal, requiera la prolongación de la medida de coerción procesal, atentando contra diversos principios como del plazo razonable, la excepcionalidad y la subsidiaridad, teniendo en dicha situación un argumento para fundar o justificar la inacción indagatoria, perjudicando al imputado, convirtiendo en desproporcional su condición situación jurídica; advirtiendo por ello, la necesidad de regular que la comunicación de las circunstancias que sustentaría la prolongación de la prisión preventiva deba ser comunicada en la primera oportunidad que se presenten, como requisito de la prolongación y no esperar al vencimiento de la referida prisión; para ello se considera enunciar la siguiente pregunta: ¿Qué fundamentos jurídicos sustentará la regulación de la comunicación oportuna de circunstancias, como requisito para solicitar la prolongación de la prisión preventiva? La ejecución de la presente investigación, se sustenta en el empleo de distintos procedimientos generales para recabar y contrastar distinta información especializada, así se empleó métodos como el Método Científico, Método Inductivo, Método Deductivo, Método Analítico, Método Histórico, Método Doctrinario; de igual modo se recurrió a procedimientos específicos para recabar información como a las Técnicas: Observación, Análisis de Documentos y Entrevistas a especialistas en el tema objeto de estudio; con sus respectivos instrumentos de investigación, específicamente nos apoyamos en la Guía de Observación, las Fichas bibliográficas y el Cuestionario de Entrevistas. 7 Luego de empelar los métodos, técnicas e instrumentos, se logró obtener resultados, los mismos que fueron discutidos en relación con los objetivos planteados, los mismos que dan soporte a la posición planteada por el investigador llegando a concluir que los fundamentos jurídicos para regular la comunicación oportuna de circunstancias, como requisito para solicitar la prolongación de la prisión preventiva son: El respeto constitucional a la Dignidad de la Persona Humana, el derecho a la razonabilidad del plazo de la prisión preventiva y el derecho a la libertad personal. Finalizada la exploración científica se considera postular conclusiones, así como una recomendación que concretiza los resultados y permite ofrecer una propuesta legislativa como aporte del estudio básico

The regulation of Euthanasia is the object of study, specifically the determination of its constitutional arguments as a clear manifestation of decision-making on ethical, transparent arguments and respectfor the autonomy of will of patientswith terminal illnesses, in order to Ontar with a clear legal framework and precise regulations that establish the necessary procedures and safeguards to prevent abuses and protect the interests of the terminally ill patient. The research is based on doctrinal arguments, as well as in the light of the emblematic case of Ana Estarda, also finding support in the positions of the specialists in the study, considering as a problem statement: What constitutional foundations will sustain the recognition of euthanasia as a fundamental right in Peru? Once the execution of the study began and ended, using a methodology according to the type of research, the hypothesis formulated in the sense that: the constitutional foundations to recognize euthanasia as a fundamental right in Peru are: Respect and constitutional defense of the Dignity of the Human Person; the right to die with dignity and not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment. The above is based on results, widely discussed, warning that what the researcher warned is a latent problem, existing in the legal and social field, necessary for immediate regulation, consistent in the light of the emblematic case of Ana Estrada. Once the study is completed, it is considered to present results for the objectives set, the same ones that are conducted in the conclusions and in the recommendation related to the proposal of legal regulation whose text is also included in this report, as a clear expression of respect and constitutional defense of the Dignity of the Human Person; the right to die with dignity and not to be subjected to cruel and inhuman This scientific exploration deals with the questionable regulation contained in article 274 of the Criminal Code, which allows the possibility that once pretrial detention has beendeclared; the Public Prosecutor's Office does not carry out the necessary steps for the investigation, or they are not sufficient to achieve the purpose of the investigation, allowing the duration of the procedural precautionary measure of a personal nature to elapse and precisely when the holder of the exercise of the criminal action is on the verge of its completion, requires the prolongation of the measure of procedural coercion, violating various principles such as reasonable time, exceptionality and subsidiarity, having in that situation an argument to found or justify the inaction of inquiry, harmingthe accused, making his status disproportionate Noting therefore the need to regulate that the communication of the circumstances that would support the extension of the preventive detention must be communicated at the first opportunity that arises, as a requirement of the extension and not wait for the expiration of the aforementioned prison; for this purpose, it is considered to state the following question: What legal grounds will support the regulation of the timely communication of circumstances, as a requirement to request the extension of pretrial detention? Theexecution of this research, is based on the use of different general procedures to collect and contrast different specialized information, thus methods such as the Scientific Method, Inductive Method, Deductive Method, Analytical Method, Historical Method, Doctrinal Method; in the same way specific procedures were used to collect information such as the Techniques: Observation, Analysis of Documents and Interviews with specialists in the subject under study; with their respective research instruments, we specifically rely on the Observation Guide, the Bibliographic Records and the Interview Questionnaire. After employing the methods, techniques and instruments, it was possible to obtain results, which were discussed in relation to the objectives proposed, the same that support the position raised by the investigator, concluding that the legal bases to 9 regulate the timely communication of circumstances, as a requirement to request the extension of pretrial detention are: Constitutional respect for the dignity of the human person, the right to reasonableness of the term of pretrial detention and the right to personal liberty. After the scientific exploration, it is considered to postulate conclusions, as well as a recommendation that concretizes the results and allows to offer a legislative proposal as a contribution of the basic study