Análisis de la presunta vulneración del principio de imparcialidad en el procedimiento directo cuando los jueces dictan prisión preventiva

Abstract

With the implementation of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP by its Spanish acronyms) in 2014, Ecuador aimed to address the shortcomings of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The COIP, borne out of extensive deliberations, brought about significant reforms, including the adoption of the accusatorial system, the incorporation of new offenses, and the introduction of specialized procedures like the direct procedure. A critical aspect in Ecuador is the direct procedure, where concerns have been raised regarding potential compromises to impartiality. If the same judge who assesses the flagrante delicto presides over the direct trial subsequently, there exists a risk of preconceived notions that might impact the fairness of the process.

The objective of this research is to determine if there is a breach of the principle of impartiality in the direct procedure when the judge who evaluates the flagrancy and orders pretrial detention as a precautionary measure is also the judge who will oversee the trial. To accomplish this paper’s goal, various methods, including deductive, analytical-comparative, and historical analyses, were employed. After scrutinizing numerous cases, particularly those resulting in pretrial detention, it is apparent that the judge forms a preconceived judgment by implementing a personal precautionary measure like preventive detention, thereby violating the principle of impartiality.