Judicial control does not ensure the intended

Roselin67

Anot established exclusively from the point of view of the seriousness of the act but taking into account several general or special criteria. The way in which they are reflected in the decisions of the courts does not represent a problem of unconstitutionality. Regarding the provisions of art. of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice no. of June exclusively concerns the resolution of an appeal in the case of the preventive measure of preventive detention. It shows that the issue of regulating a deadline for resolving the appeal against the prosecutors order by which the.

Measure of judicial control was taken or extended was analyzed by Country Email List the constitutional court by Decision no. of October paragraphs the Court rejecting the exception as unfounded. Appreciates that the aspects related to the interpretation and application of these provisions of the law in a specific case cannot attract their unconstitutionality being a matter of a particular manner of interpretation and application. Considering these aspects it considers that it is necessary to reject as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. of the Criminal Procedure Code. . Having the floor in reply the lawyer of the author of the exception.



Shows that the maximum duration of the judicial control is provided by art. para. of the Code of Criminal Procedure exclusively for considerations related to the seriousness of the facts held against the defendant. From the perspective of proportionality he appreciates that the measure ofpurpose given that the author of the exception was successively subjected to the preventive measures of preventive detention and judicial control. Thus in the conditions in which the measure of preventive detention in the case of the author of the exception during the criminal investigation exceeded the duration of.