Publication: Actualización de una garantía histórica de la libertad. El hábeas corpus: su regulación jurídica en España y Perú
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-01-31
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El hábeas corpus, institución de antigua data y de origen anglosajón, ha sido incorporado en las vigentes Constituciones de España y de Perú, como una garantía específica de protección del derecho a la libertad personal. En el caso de Perú, fue acogido tempranamente en 1897, constituyéndose en la única garantía para la defensa de todos los derechos, hasta la inclusión del amparo en la Constitución de 1979. La pretensión de tutela del hábeas corpus en Perú es amplia, pues incluye la protección de la libertad individual y derechos conexos, ante el acto u omisión de cualquier autoridad o persona, que la vulnera o amenaza. Se diferencia de España, que protege los derechos de la persona detenida ilegalmente, configurándose como un presupuesto de procedencia la privación efectiva de la libertad. El objetivo general de la presente investigación es efectuar un estudio comparativo de la regulación constitucional y legal del hábeas corpus en ambos países. Los temas referidos a los derechos que se protegen, presupuestos de procedencia, legitimación, competencia, trámite, entre otros, son analizados y valorados a lo largo de la investigación, mediante la exposición sistemática, apoyada en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional de España y de Perú, y de los órganos de la jurisdicción internacional, que se constituyen en el referente obligado de todo análisis de los derechos fundamentales y sus mecanismos de protección. El resultado de la comparación de las diferentes características del hábeas corpus español y peruano han permitido comprender su problemática, en especial respecto de Perú, en el cual ha sido configurado como un proceso constitucional, otorgándose competencia a los jueces penales, que también desempeñan funciones de jueces constitucionales, lo que genera problemas. Y en esta perspectiva, en la tesis se proponen reformas legislativas puntuales al Código Procesal Constitucional, que se viene aplicando desde diciembre de 2014 en Perú.
Habeas Corpus, a longstanding institution of Anglo-Saxon origin, has been incorporated into the current Constitutions of Spain and Peru as a specific guarantee of protection of the right to personal freedom. In the case of Peru, it was adopted early, in 1897 and became the sole guarantee for the defence of all rights, up to the inclusion of the writ of amparo in the Constitution of 1979. The protection of the Habeas Corpus in Peru is broad, since it includes the protection of the individual freedom and related rights, in the event of an act or omission by any authority or person that infringes or threatens such freedom. Habeas Corpus in Spain differs in that it protects the rights of a person illegally arrested, establishing as a presupposition the effective deprivation of liberty. The general purpose of this investigation is the comparative study of the constitutional and statutory regulation of Habeas Corpus in both countries. Issues related to protected rights, presuppositions, legitimacy, competence, proceedings, and the like, are analysed and evaluated throughout the investigation, by means of the systematic exposition, based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Courts in Spain and Peru, and of the international jurisdiction bodies, which are the required reference for any analysis of the fundamental rights and their protection mechanisms. The result of the comparison of the different characteristics of the Spanish and Peruvian Habeas Corpus has made it possible to understand the issues involved, especially those related to Peru, where it has taken the form of a constitutional process, by giving competence to criminal judges, who also exercise functions as constitutional judges, which causes problems. It is in this context that this thesis proposes specific legislative reforms to the Code of Constitutional Procedure of Peru, which has been in force since December 2014.
Habeas Corpus, a longstanding institution of Anglo-Saxon origin, has been incorporated into the current Constitutions of Spain and Peru as a specific guarantee of protection of the right to personal freedom. In the case of Peru, it was adopted early, in 1897 and became the sole guarantee for the defence of all rights, up to the inclusion of the writ of amparo in the Constitution of 1979. The protection of the Habeas Corpus in Peru is broad, since it includes the protection of the individual freedom and related rights, in the event of an act or omission by any authority or person that infringes or threatens such freedom. Habeas Corpus in Spain differs in that it protects the rights of a person illegally arrested, establishing as a presupposition the effective deprivation of liberty. The general purpose of this investigation is the comparative study of the constitutional and statutory regulation of Habeas Corpus in both countries. Issues related to protected rights, presuppositions, legitimacy, competence, proceedings, and the like, are analysed and evaluated throughout the investigation, by means of the systematic exposition, based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Courts in Spain and Peru, and of the international jurisdiction bodies, which are the required reference for any analysis of the fundamental rights and their protection mechanisms. The result of the comparison of the different characteristics of the Spanish and Peruvian Habeas Corpus has made it possible to understand the issues involved, especially those related to Peru, where it has taken the form of a constitutional process, by giving competence to criminal judges, who also exercise functions as constitutional judges, which causes problems. It is in this context that this thesis proposes specific legislative reforms to the Code of Constitutional Procedure of Peru, which has been in force since December 2014.
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Constitucional, leída el 02-02-2016