Habeas Corpus against Criminal Court Decisions in the Code of Constitutional Procedure

Authors

  • Javier Aguirre Chumbimuni Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.200501.010

Keywords:

Habeas Corpus, Code of Constitutional Procedure, Personal Liberty, Manifest Violation, Final Judicial Decision, Due Process, Effective Judicial Protection

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the recent amendment to the Peruvian Code of Constitutional Procedure on the constitutional procedure of habeas corpus in cases of violation, threat or restriction of personal liberty in the context of criminal proceedings. An a contrario sensu interpretation of Law No. 23506 and its complementary law has established that habeas corpus would be applied in the case of irregular procedures, although the law does not explicitly state this. Consequently, in order for habeas corpus to be valid, the irregular procedure had to be directly related to the violation of constitutional guarantees such as due process and effective judicial protection, and this violation had to affect, threaten or limit personal liberty. The absence of an explicit rule led the Code of Constitutional Procedure to state textually that habeas corpus proceedings may be brought against final judicial decisions that manifestly violate individual liberty and effective judicial protection. In this context, the author proposes a legislative amendment that would allow habeas corpus and establish that the final nature of the decision should not be required when: (i) the violation is obvious, unquestionable, obvious and undeniable; (ii) it is impossible to lodge the relevant appeals within the procedure due to an act of God or force majeure; (iii) or if, despite having lodged the appeals, they are not resolved within the period established by law or within a reasonable period of time.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cabanellas, G. (1996). Diccionario enciclopédico de derecho usual (24ª ed., T. VII). Heliasta.

Eguiguren Praeli, F. J. (2003). Aplicación de los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos en la jurisprudencia constitucional peruana. Ius et Praxis, 9(1), 157-191. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122003000100009

Eguiguren Praeli, F. y Espinoza-Saldaña Barrera, E. (2005). Dos ensayos sobre nueva jurisprudencia constitucional: los tratados de derechos humanos y el hábeas corpus contra resoluciones judiciales. Consorcio Justicia Viva. https://web.archive.org/web/20050530073956/http://www.justiciaviva.org.pe/publica/03.pdf

Marcelo de Bernardis, L. (1995). La garantía procesal del debido proceso. Cultural Cuzco.

Navarra Garma, A. (2001). Pretensión nulificante de la cosa juzgada fraudulenta en el proceso civil. En C. Castañeda Serrano (Comp.), Nulidad de cosa juzgada fraudulenta (1ª ed., T. II). Lima.

Obando Blanco, V. R. (2001). El derecho a la tutela jurisdiccional efectiva en la jurisprudencia. Palestra Editores.

Quiroga León, A. (2003). El debido proceso legal en el Perú y el sistema interamericano de protección de derechos humanos. Jurista Editores.

Sáenz Dávalos, L. R. (2003). Los procesos constitucionales como mecanismos de protección frente a resoluciones judiciales arbitrarias. En S. Castañeda Otsu (Coord.), Derecho Procesal Constitucional (1ª ed.). Jurista Editores.

Tribunal Constitucional del Perú. (2001, 18 de diciembre). Expediente N.º 697-2000-HC/TC. https://tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2001/00697-2000-HC.html

Tribunal Constitucional del Perú. (2002, 20 de junio). Expediente N.º 1230-2002-HC/TC. https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2002/01230-2002-HC.html

Tribunal Constitucional del Perú. (2003, 9 de junio). Expediente N.º 1076-2003-HC/TC. https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2003/01076-2003-HC.html

Tribunal Constitucional del Perú. (2004, 11 de mayo). Expediente N.º 0222-2004-HC/TC. https://tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2004/00222-2004-HC.html

Published

2005-10-25

How to Cite

Aguirre Chumbimuni, J. (2005). Habeas Corpus against Criminal Court Decisions in the Code of Constitutional Procedure. Derecho PUCP, (58), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.200501.010