Transgression of criminal procedural principles and constitutional rights due to excessive preventive detention time without enforceable sentences

Abstract

Introduction: The research focuses on the problem of the reasonable term in cases of non-executed judgments, specifically in the context of caducidad. It addresses the conflict arising between two criteria issued by the highest Ecuadorian courts: the Plenary of the National Court of Justice and the Plenary of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. This conflict is illustrated in Ruling No. 02-2023, issued on January 05, 2023 by the National Court of Justice, and Resolution No. 112-14-JH, dated July 21, 2021, issued by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court. Although jurisdictional decisions related to caducidad are presented, the focus is not on the legality, arbitrariness or legitimacy of the circumstances that led to the pronouncement on the precautionary measure of preventive detention, but on the constitutional reasoning more in line with constitutional and conventional rights. Objective: The objective of the research is to analyze the different positions adopted by the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador with respect to the reasonable term and expiration in cases of non-executed sentences. The aim is to determine which of the two approaches is better adjusted to the constitutional and conventional principles of protection of rights.  Methodology: The methodology used in this research consisted of an exhaustive analysis of the rulings and resolutions issued by the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador related to the issue of reasonable time and forfeiture. A detailed review of the legal grounds used in each case was carried out, as well as a comparative analysis of the positions adopted by both institutions.  Results: The results of the research reveal that there is a conflict of interpretation between the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador regarding reasonable time and caducidad in cases of non-executed sentences. While the National Court adopts a more legalistic and restrictive approach in the application of the law, the Constitutional Court leans towards a more constitutionalist interpretation, prioritizing the protection of fundamental rights. Conclusion: In conclusion, the research shows the need to harmonize the interpretations of the National Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in relation to the reasonable term and the expiration of time in cases of non-executed sentences. It is essential to find a balance between legal and constitutional aspects in order to guarantee adequate protection of the rights of persons involved in judicial proceeding.