While the dotron of the Creole bill has been thrown in the sense that; “Evidence obtained under the system of legality allows it to be used as a means of prosecution and, in this sense, legality is the label that is affixed in a visible place for the media to prove the attribution of a criminal offence in criminal proceedings; It is the “instrument” that defines the outcome of the accusing party`s actions, public or private, to prove the fact. This Code establishes the freedom of evidence in accordance with the content of articles 170 et seq. and also stipulates the mechanisms by which evidence is obtained, as well as its legal framework and the necessary formalities, so that the evidence acquires the legality that makes it an integral part of the procedure. In deciding the charge against the charge in any way, the judge must, among other things, consider the legality of the evidence presented as merit. International doctrine defines legal evidence as the system that legally regulates the probative value that judges must attach to evidence and imposes the obligation to justify their sentence on the basis of logical considerations based on strict compliance with this rule. Article 26 provides that the violation of the principle of legality (i) entails the nullity of the act and its consequences; (ii) it may be invoked at any stage of the reason; (iii) that criminal sanctions may be derived from those responsible for the act. The legality of evidence appears literally for the first time in the Fundamental Charter of the Nation during the semester of the year proclaimed on the twenty-sixth (26) of the year two thousand and ten (2010), when a material guarantee was positive with the promulgation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Castro, A. Y., Losada, L.
E., & Vargas, J. J. (2013). Exclusion of evidence to protect legality. Specialization of the thesis in criminal evidence law. University of Medellin, Medellin, Colombia. Available in: repository.udem.edu.co/bitstream/handle/11407/1100/La%20exclusi%C3%B3n%20probatoria%20como%20protecci%C3%B3n%20de%20la%20legalidad.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y For the stated purposes, when requesting the commencement of proceedings, the Public Prosecutor`s Office submits its indictment in which, in accordance with article 294, it sets out “the grounds of the indictment with a description of the evidence on which they are based”. Also “the offering of evidence to be presented to the court, including the list of witnesses, experts and all other evidence, indicating the facts or circumstances to be proved, on pain of inadmissibility”.
These principles are considered in the Colombian legal system as norms of immediate application, since they play a role in the protection of fundamental and constitutional guarantees for citizens. In this sense, these are rules that cannot be indifferent, especially when it comes to the action of a judicial or administrative authority, since its activity is regulated by legal requirements that must always support such actions. This brings us to the principle of legality or the duty to justify administrative action in previous normative commandments. In this sense, the principle of legality in the process ensures that all steps are sorted according to what is legally established, a situation that, as is logical, involves the evidentiary phase both in obtaining the evidence and in its inclusion in the process; These steps are explicitly regulated and the absence of these guidelines or the violation of fundamental rights and guarantees during their implementation is sufficient reason to declare evidence invalid as a sanction for its illegality and to exclude it from the procedure. All evidence obtained in violation of the law is null and void, as stipulated in article 69, paragraph 8, of the Political Constitution of the Dominican Republic, which refers to effective judicial protection and due process, guarantees of the fundamental rights enjoyed by all persons in the exercise of their legitimate rights and interests. Article 26 of Act No. 76-02, which established the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Dominican Republic, provides that evidence is valid only if it has been obtained and included in the proceedings in accordance with the principles and rules of this Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to comply with this rule may be invoked at any stage of the ground and entails the nullity of the act and its consequences, without prejudice to the penalties provided for by law for offenders, which are then supplemented in Title I of Book IV under the heading “Evidence”; Evidence may only be evaluated if it has been obtained lawfully and in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The legality of evidence depends on the manner in which it is collected or collected, the person conducting the questioning and the status of the person designated by law to collect the evidence at the place where the objects used to commit the offence were hidden. It is for the investigating judge to examine the legality of the evidence at the preliminary hearing.
In this regard, it provides that evidence obtained in violation of the forms and conditions involving a violation of the rights and guarantees of the accused provided for in the Constitution of the Republic, international treaties and this Code, the judge may not: (i) evaluate it to justify a judicial decision; (ii) use them as a condition of a court decision. Article 166, on the other hand, confirms this principle by stating that “evidence may be assessed only if it has been obtained by lawful means” and in accordance with the relevant rules of the CCP. What gives force to the above provisions is the system of consequences that leads to their violation. The same article prohibits the judge from (i) evaluating evidence that is a direct consequence of evidence obtained in violation of the law and (ii) evaluating acts taken in violation of forms that prevent the exercise of the victim`s right to judicial protection or the exercise of the functions of the prosecution. unless the defect has been confirmed. Pastor, B. (1986). effectiveness in illegally obtaining evidence.
Justice: Journal of Procedural Law, (2), 337-368. Article 167 provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the law. The Constitutional Chamber of the Republic of Costa Rica has stressed in numerous resolutions that the illegitimate evidence underlying the verdict violates due process guarantees. He said: “The principle of illegitimacy of the test. This raises a difficult issue that appears to be at the heart of the case that gave rise to the consultation, namely the question of illegitimate evidence, its formal treatment and its evaluation, an issue on which criminal and constitutional doctrine and jurisprudence have not yet reached consensus. However, this Parliament has already adopted a position, if not unanimously, at least constantly, on the basis of the hypothetical suppression of false testimony, in that it not only denies any probative value in itself that does not seem to be debated, but should also be removed from the process, that is, it does not assume that it did not exist. And therefore, other evidence that is not illegitimate in itself becomes invalid to the extent that it was obtained by their means. The differences between the majority and minority of the House were quite nuanced and attributed to the hypothetical principle of oppression, so that it can be said that this is the criterion supported by the erga omnes binding value of precedents and the jurisprudence of constitutional jurisdiction.
On the basis of the criterion that evidence is the most effective means of considering the factual proposal made by the parties to the proceedings, evidence has value only if it has been lawfully obtained and included in the proceedings, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in principle if it is recalled that there is a system of legal evidence in the country, which becomes a regime of proof that emerged in the thirteenth century with the conscious aim of obtaining certainty on the basis of rational evidence. Miranda, M. (1999). The concept of unlawful evidence and its treatment in criminal proceedings. Barcelona: Editorial Bosch. Gómez, J. L. (2008). The development of theories on the test forbids in the Spanish process: from expansionism without borders to the purest reductionism. A meditation on its immediate future development.
