El control judicial como garantía de no injerencia en la vida privada durante la instrucción
una observación en el marco del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos
El artículo está dedicado a la cuestión de actualidad del control judicial sobre la no injerencia en la vida privada (personal y familiar) de los participantes en los procesos penales. El estudio se ha realizado en el contexto del análisis de la práctica del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, cuyas posiciones jurídicas deben aplicarse de forma coherente en los procesos penales; prueba de ello son los requisitos legales sobre esta cuestión. La noción y el concepto de control judicial es un componente necesario que contribuye a garantizar el respeto de la dignidad y la integridad humanas. Es un principio común y establecido que, durante el proceso previo al juicio, es la posición de aquellos que aseguran la justicia en hacer que la vida de las personas sea respetada y salvaguardada. Cabe señalar que, de acuerdo con la legislación nacional de Ucrania, el control judicial es una función separada de las actividades del tribunal en la fase de investigación previa al juicio, llevada a cabo directamente por el juez de instrucción. La situación será precaria y perjudicial cuando no se respete al máximo la vida privada de las personas. Por lo tanto, es responsabilidad de quienes velan por el orden público durante la fase de investigación previa al juicio garantizar el respeto de la vida privada del presunto sospechoso para el correcto desarrollo del proceso de justicia. Para garantizar este derecho, se establece que los métodos empíricos y analíticos de la investiga-ción son necesarios, con el fin de mostrar el papel efectivo desempeñado por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el respeto del derecho a la vida privada durante la fase de interrogatorio de la investigación. De las conclusiones se desprende que, aunque el Tribunal ha desempeñado un papel destacado y pertinente en el respeto de la vida privada, el sospechoso sigue experimentando dificultades cuando su vida privada está en juego, y ello afecta siempre al alcance del sistema judicial.
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 DIXI
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal DIXI before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
B. Levenets. Models of judicial enforcement of Great Britain and the United States. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law. (2020). No. 1. Pg. 172.
Case of Aquilina v. Malta (Application no. 25642/94): Judgment; Strasbourg, 29 April 1999. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58239
Case of Cebotari v. Moldova (Application no. 543/03): Judgment; Strasbourg, 13 November 2007. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83247
Case of Kats and Others v. Ukraine (Application no. 29971/04): Judgment; Strasbourg, 18 December 2008. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90362.
Case of Letellier v. France (Application no. 12369/86): Judgment; Strasbourg, 26 June 1991. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57678
Case of McKay v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 543/03): Judgment; Strasbourg, 3 October 2006. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77177
Case of Niedbała v. Poland (Application no. 27915/95): Judgment; Strasbourg, 4 July 2000. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58739
Case of Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg (Application no. 51772/99): Judgment; Strasbourg, 25 February 2003. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60958.
Case of Shchokin v. Ukraine (Application nos. 23759/03 and 37943/06): Judgment; Strasbourg, 14 October 2010. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-100944.
Case of Varga v. Romania (Application no. 73957/01): Judgment; Strasbourg, 1 April 2008. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-123847
Case of Viorel Burzo v. Romania (Application no. 75109/01, 12639/02): Judgment; Strasbourg, 30 June 2009. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-123471
Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 13 April 2012. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text.
O. G. Yanovska Application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the performance of judicial control in criminal proceedings. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. (2013). No. 2 (27). Pg. 15.
On some issues of the investigating judge of a court of first instance charged with carrying out court supervision over the observance of rights, freedoms and interests of persons involved in criminal proceedings: letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine no. 223-558/0/4-13 dated April 5, 2013. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0558740-13.
P. P. Pidiukov, Ya. Yu. Koniushenko & M. O. Amons. System and competence of the US law enforcement agencies authorized to initiate criminal surveillance (prosecution) and conduct pre-trial criminal proceedings. European perspectives. (2012). № 2. Part 1. Pg. 120–121.
R. I. Trakalo. International legal standards of judicial control over the observance of the right to respect for private life. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. (2014). No. 1. Pg. 89.
S. Rab. Legal systems in UK (England and Wales): overview. (2019). Available at: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-636-2498?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default).
Unified State Register of Court Decisions. Available at: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/.
V. Teremetskyi, V. Chmelyuk, V. Matsiuk, V. Galagan & Zh. Udovenko. Problem of ensuring the right to medical care of a detainee (detained in custody) within criminal proceedings: experience of Ukraine and foreign countries. Georgian Medical News. (2019). No. 11 (296). Pg. 155-156.
V. V. Nazarov & R. I. Trakalo. The role of judicial control over the observance of the right to respect for private life in appealing decisions, actions or iaction during the pre-trial investigation. International Law Bulletin. (2015). Vol. 1 (2). Pg. 36.
V. V. Nazarov. Restriction of constitutional rights of the person in criminal procedure: Dissirtation of Doctor Degree in Law on speciality 12.00.09. Dnipropetrovs’k. (2009).
Yu. V. Skrypina. The investigative judge in the system of criminal-procedural activity (comparative-legal research): Dissertation of the Candidate of Juridical Sciences. Kharkiv. (2008).
