| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 511.44 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A presente dissertação tem como objeto de estudo a relação entre a coexistência das duas
fases preliminares do processo penal português (leia-se, o inquérito e a instrução),
construídas à luz do CPP de1987, e os problemas a elas associados, em particular, o da
demora na realização na justiça.
Para isso, estruturámos a nossa análise em três partes: a primeira, dedicada a um
enquadramento teórico do inquérito e da instrução, versando sobre os órgãos e
autoridades judiciárias que atuam nestas fases, explorando o seu objeto e a possibilidade
(ou impossibilidade) de alterações no mesmo, assim como a intervenção dos sujeitos
processuais; a segunda, dedicada a um estudo crítico destas fases processuais preliminares
e das vantagens e desvantagens que podem acarretar para o processo penal e para a Justiça
portugueses; e, por fim, uma terceira parte na qual propomos uma solução que
consideramos mais benéfica para o sistema processual penal português.
Apoiando-nos em variados diplomas legais, sendo o mais relevante o CPP português, em
direito comparado e ainda em estadísticas do TEDH, propomo-nos responder a três
questões: Será a coexistência das fases preliminares eficaz e respeitadora das garantias
dos sujeitos processuais e dos princípios que figuram na nossa ordem jurídica, a saber, o
da celeridade e da economia processuais? Ou será possível tornar o processo preliminar
mais célere e, inerentemente, mais garantístico?
The present dissertation studies the relationship between the coexistence of the two preliminary phases of the Portuguese criminal process (read, the inquiry, and the instruction), built in the light of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP) of 1987, and the problems associated with them, in particular, the delay in Justice. For this, we structured our analysis in three parts: the first, dedicated to a theoretical framework of the inquiry and the instruction, dealing with the judicial bodies and authorities that operate in these phases, exploring its objects and the possibility (or impossibility) of changes in it, as well as the intervention of procedural subjects; the second, dedicated to a critical study of these preliminary procedural phases and the advantages and disadvantages that they can bring to the Portuguese criminal process and Justice; and, finally, a third part in which we propose a solution that we consider most beneficial for the Portuguese criminal procedural system. Supporting us in various legal diplomas, the most relevant being the Portuguese CPP, in comparative law, and statistics of the ECHR, we propose to answer three questions: Will the preliminary phases coexist effectively and respect the guarantees of the procedural subjects and principles that appear in our legal order, namely that of procedural speed and economy? Or is it possible to make the preliminary process faster and, inherently, more guarantee-making?
The present dissertation studies the relationship between the coexistence of the two preliminary phases of the Portuguese criminal process (read, the inquiry, and the instruction), built in the light of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP) of 1987, and the problems associated with them, in particular, the delay in Justice. For this, we structured our analysis in three parts: the first, dedicated to a theoretical framework of the inquiry and the instruction, dealing with the judicial bodies and authorities that operate in these phases, exploring its objects and the possibility (or impossibility) of changes in it, as well as the intervention of procedural subjects; the second, dedicated to a critical study of these preliminary procedural phases and the advantages and disadvantages that they can bring to the Portuguese criminal process and Justice; and, finally, a third part in which we propose a solution that we consider most beneficial for the Portuguese criminal procedural system. Supporting us in various legal diplomas, the most relevant being the Portuguese CPP, in comparative law, and statistics of the ECHR, we propose to answer three questions: Will the preliminary phases coexist effectively and respect the guarantees of the procedural subjects and principles that appear in our legal order, namely that of procedural speed and economy? Or is it possible to make the preliminary process faster and, inherently, more guarantee-making?
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Inquérito Instrução Juiz de instrução criminal Processo penal Poder de veto Inquiry Instruction Criminal instruction judge Criminal procedure Veto