The principle of presumption of innocence in the application of pretrial detention

Authors

Keywords:

Pretrial detention, presumption of innocence, criminal precautionary measures, violation of rights

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the Principle of Presumption of Innocence in relation to preventive detention and its application within the Ecuadorian legal system. Therefore, a data collection has been carried out by reviewing books, specialized journals and web pages, carrying out this article under a qualitative bibliographic method. With all the information obtained, it can be noted that the legal regulation of the Principle of Innocence within Ecuadorian Legislation is mostly violated due to the prerogative of unjustified imputation of preventive detention. In this sense, a weighing of interests is necessary to determine the need for proportionate and justified application of Preventive Detention. Likewise, it is concluded that the legal regulation of Preventive Detention in Ecuador, despite being a legitimate and useful mechanism in specific cases, is not in accordance with the Principle of Presumption of Innocence, and that such application should be rigorous and proportionate to avoid an unjustified violation of the fundamental right to liberty and other substantial precepts. In addition, the application of alternative precautionary measures to Preventive Detention is recommended to reduce prison overcrowding and guarantee the effectiveness of the criminal process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amnistía Internacional. (2019). Ecuador: Violaciones de derechos humanos en proceso penal contra Ola Bini. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/AMR2808712019SPANISH.pdf

Cadena, A. P. (2021). La prueba diabólica penal: entelequia normativa y prisión preventiva. J.M.Bosch.

Carrión, L. C. (2008). Valoración Jurídica de la prueba penal. Tomo I. Ediciones Cueva Carrion.

Cassese, A. (2008). International criminal law. Oxford University Press.

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2021). Medidas alternativas a la privación de libertad. https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/mandato/medidas.asp

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2007). Caso Chaparro Álvarez y Lapo Íñiguez Vs. Ecuador. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_170_esp.pdf

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2010). Caso Chitay Nech y otros Vs. Guatemala. https://www.refworld.org/themes/custom/unhcr_rw/pdf-js/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.refworld.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flegacy-pdf%2Fes%2F2010-5%2F5d7fca09a.pdf

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2013). Caso Suarez Rosero vs. Ecuador. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_35_esp.pdf

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2019). Caso Hernández Vs. Argentina. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/resumen_395_esp.pdf

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2021). La pena de Prisión en America Latina. Ciudad de México. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r34037.pdf

Ecuador. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Registro Oficial 449. https://www.oas.org/juridico/pdfs/mesicic4_ecu_const.pdf

Ecuador. Asamblea Nacional. (2014). Código Orgánico Integral Penal. https://www.oas.org/juridico/PDFs/mesicic5_ecu_ane_con_judi_c%C3%B3d_org_int_pen.pdf

Espinoza-Guamán, E. E. (2022). La prisión preventiva como medida cautelar y el respeto del principio de presunción de inocencia. Revista Sociedad & Tecnología, 5(2), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.51247/st.v5i2.219

Fernández de Cevallos y Torres, J. (2017). La prisión preventiva en el sistema penal acusatorio. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Penales, 1(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.57042/rmcp.v1i1.4

Ferragioli, L. (2011). Teoría y razón: Teoría del garantismo penal. Trotta.

Human Rights Watch. (2021). Word Report 2021: Ecuador. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/ecuador

Luque González, A., & Arias, E. (2020). El derecho constitucional en el Ecuador: presunción de inocencia y prisión preventiva. Boletín Mexicano De Derecho Comparado, 1(157), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24484873e.2020.157.15228

Mallandrich Miret, M. (2019). Las medidas cautelares en el proceso penal de las personas jurídicas. Revista General de Derecho Procesal, 48, 1-34. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/152751/1/696952.pdf

Marcheco Acuña, B. (2017). La Tutela Cautelar en los procesos contra la administración pública en Ecuador. Revista de derecho de Valdivia, 30(19, 263-285. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/revider/v30n1/art11.pdf

Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (2019). Observaciones finales sobre el séptimo informe periódico de Ecuador. https://www.ohchr.org/es/documents/concluding-observations/concluding-observations-seventh-periodic-report-ecuador

Perez, E. G. (2017). La prisión preventiva en el sistema penal acusatorio. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Penales.

Downloads

Published

2025-01-01

How to Cite

Peña-Trávez, D. L., & Sánchez-Oviedo, D. X. (2025). The principle of presumption of innocence in the application of pretrial detention. Revista UGC, 3(1), 111–119. Retrieved from https://universidadugc.edu.mx/ojs/index.php/rugc/article/view/79

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025): Enfoque multidisciplinario en las ciencias (Enero-abril)

Section

Artículos

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Doménica Liliana Peña-Trávez; Danny Xavier Sánchez-Oviedo

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in Revista UGC agree to the following terms:

1. Copyright

Authors retain unrestricted copyright to their work. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication. To this end, they assign the journal non-exclusive exploitation rights (reproduction, distribution, public communication, and transformation). Authors may enter into additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal, provided that acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal is given.

© The authors.

2. License

The articles are published in the journal under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The terms can be found at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

This license allows:

  • Sharing: Copying and redistributing the material in any medium or format.
  • Adapting: Remixing, transforming, and building upon the material.

Under the following terms:

  • Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes were made. You may do this in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses or sponsors your use.
  • NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your creation under the same license as the original work.

There are no additional restrictions. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.