Principio de inocencia y la medida de aseguramiento desde la legislación y jurisprudencia en Colombia
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2025
Autores
Barrera Carretero, Karla Marcelys
Ospino Soto, Alberto Mario
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
Antecedentes: El debate al respecto de la presunción de inocencia y las medidas de aseguramiento en Colombia ha estado presente desde la implementación del sistema penal acusatorio con la ley 906 de 2005, en la que se agregó la figura del juez de control de garantías como el garante de los derechos fundamentales. Sin embargo, la tensión entre la protección de la libertad personal y los requerimientos de asegurar la comparecencia del imputado al proceso, al igual que la protección de la sociedad y de la víctima, ha incitado un extenso desarrollo doctrinal y jurisprudencial en la Corte Constitucional y la Corte Suprema de Justifica, señalando en diversos pronunciamiento que la detención preventiva de la libertad debe ser de carácter excepcional y fundada en los criterios de necesidad, proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. A pesar de esto, la practica judicial manifiesta un uso recurrente de esta medida, lo que suscita cuestionamiento sobre la vigencia real del principio de inocencia en el proceso penal y la coherencia del estado colombiano con los compromisos internacionales en materia de derechos humanos.
Introducción: La relación entre medidas de aseguramiento y el principio de presunción de inocencia es un tema que refleja muy bien la complejidad del derecho en algunos temas donde es necesario que el Estado intervenga de la forma clásica pero ahora respetando los derechos humanos y la Constitución. Es una muestra de la dificultad de establecer un equilibrio entre las variables que resulte congruente y satisfactorio.
Objetivos: La presente investigación se plantea como objetivo general analizar la relación entre la imposición de medida de aseguramiento y el principio de presunción de inocencia en el marco de la legislación y jurisprudencia en Colombia y objetivos específicos identificar la aplicabilidad de los principios y criterios de razonabilidad, racionalidad, proporcionalidad y necesidad en la asignación de la medida de aseguramiento; describir los tipos de medidas de aseguramiento en el ordenamiento jurídico penal colombiano e interpretar la postura de la Corte Suprema de Justicia respecto de la medida de aseguramiento y su articulación con el principio de presunción de inocencia.
Método: se trata de un estudio con enfoque cualitativo, basado en el paradigma histórico hermenéutico y con un alcance explicativo. Para el desarrollo del trabajo se emplean técnicas como la revisión documental y análisis de textos.
Resultados: demuestran que el principio de presunción de inocencia es vulnerado por medidas de aseguramiento privativas de libertad por parte de los jueces de control de garantías, lo que termina siendo un problema para Colombia como Estado Social de Derecho que se rige por una Constitución Política que establece
el principio de presunción de inocencia, lo cual debe reflejarse en las actuaciones judicial del Estado, de manera que primero una persona debe ser debidamente procesada antes de ser declarada culpable.
Conclusion: no hay una correspondencia entre los postulados constitucionales y legales y la realidad del sistema de justicia por cuanto la privativa de libertad se vuelve una medida preferente por parte de los jueces, muy a pesar de su carácter excepcional establecido así por la ley, lo que no solo significa una contradicción con los derechos que deben ser garantizados por el Estado, sino que también tiene otras consecuencias, como el hacinamiento carcelario.
Background: The debate regarding the presumption of innocence and preventive detention measures in Colombia has been ongoing since the implementation of the accusatory criminal justice system with Law 906 of 2005, which added the position of the pretrial judge as the guarantor of fundamental rights. However, the tension between the protection of personal liberty and the requirements of ensuring the appearance of the accused in court, as well as the protection of society and the victim, has prompted extensive doctrinal and jurisprudential development in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Justice, which have indicated in various rulings that preventive detention for liberty must be exceptional and based on the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. Despite this, judicial practice shows a recurrent use of this measure, which raises questions about the real validity of the principle of innocence in criminal proceedings and the consistency of the Colombian State with its international human rights commitments. Objectives: The general objective of this research is to analyze the relationship between the imposition of preventive measures and the principle of the presumption of innocence within the framework of Colombian legislation and jurisprudence. The specific objectives are to identify the applicability of the principles and criteria of reasonableness, rationality, proportionality, and necessity in the assignment of preventive measures; to describe the types of preventive measures in the Colombian criminal legal system; and to interpret the position of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding preventive measures and their relationship with the principle of the presumption of innocence. Method: This is a qualitative study based on the historical-hermeneutic paradigm and with an explanatory scope. Techniques such as document review and text analysis are used to develop this work. Results: They demonstrate that the presumption of innocence is violated by custodial measures imposed by judges, which ultimately poses a problem for Colombia as a social state governed by the rule of law, governed by a Political Constitution that establishes the presumption of innocence. This principle must be reflected in the State's judicial proceedings, so that a person must first be duly prosecuted before being found guilty. Conclusion: There is no correspondence between constitutional and legal principles and the reality of the justice system, as deprivation of liberty becomes a preferred measure for judges, despite its exceptional nature established by law. This not only contradicts the rights that must be guaranteed by the State, but also has other consequences, such as prison overcrowding.
Background: The debate regarding the presumption of innocence and preventive detention measures in Colombia has been ongoing since the implementation of the accusatory criminal justice system with Law 906 of 2005, which added the position of the pretrial judge as the guarantor of fundamental rights. However, the tension between the protection of personal liberty and the requirements of ensuring the appearance of the accused in court, as well as the protection of society and the victim, has prompted extensive doctrinal and jurisprudential development in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Justice, which have indicated in various rulings that preventive detention for liberty must be exceptional and based on the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. Despite this, judicial practice shows a recurrent use of this measure, which raises questions about the real validity of the principle of innocence in criminal proceedings and the consistency of the Colombian State with its international human rights commitments. Objectives: The general objective of this research is to analyze the relationship between the imposition of preventive measures and the principle of the presumption of innocence within the framework of Colombian legislation and jurisprudence. The specific objectives are to identify the applicability of the principles and criteria of reasonableness, rationality, proportionality, and necessity in the assignment of preventive measures; to describe the types of preventive measures in the Colombian criminal legal system; and to interpret the position of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding preventive measures and their relationship with the principle of the presumption of innocence. Method: This is a qualitative study based on the historical-hermeneutic paradigm and with an explanatory scope. Techniques such as document review and text analysis are used to develop this work. Results: They demonstrate that the presumption of innocence is violated by custodial measures imposed by judges, which ultimately poses a problem for Colombia as a social state governed by the rule of law, governed by a Political Constitution that establishes the presumption of innocence. This principle must be reflected in the State's judicial proceedings, so that a person must first be duly prosecuted before being found guilty. Conclusion: There is no correspondence between constitutional and legal principles and the reality of the justice system, as deprivation of liberty becomes a preferred measure for judges, despite its exceptional nature established by law. This not only contradicts the rights that must be guaranteed by the State, but also has other consequences, such as prison overcrowding.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Medidas de aseguramiento, Presunción de inocencia, Privativa de libertad