Esta pesquisa analisa em perspectiva compara entre Moçambique e Brasil, a estrutura e o funcionamento das instituições do setor da administração da justiça, com ênfase nos procedimentos processuais adotados no âmbito da investigação criminal e/ou inquérito policial, e na decretação da prisão preventiva. A finalidade desta comparação é averiguar as diferenças e semelhanças, e aferir as causas das prisões arbitrárias (prisões preventivas ou provisórias com prazos esgotados). Tratou-se de investigar as estratégias no âmbito da prevenção e do combate ao crime, indagando o posicionamento das instituições governamentais, dos agentes do controle penal (Polícias, Ministério Público, Poderes Judiciários e Agentes da Ordem dos Advogados), assim como às políticas de reclusão e das organizações da sociedade civil que zelam pela observância dos direitos humanos. Em termos metodológicos, optou-se por uma abordagem qualitativa coadjuvada pelo método quantitativo numa perspectiva comparada. Os dados foram coletados por meio da utilização das técnicas de observação participante, análise documental e a revisão bibliográfica. No que respeita ao instrumento de recolha de dado foi usada a técnica de entrevista. / This research analyzes in perspective compares between Mozambique and Brazil, the structure and the functioning of the justice administration institutions sector, with an emphasis on procedures adopted in the context of a criminal investigation and/or Police investigation, and the declaring of pre-trial detention, whose purpose is to assess the differences and similarities, and assess the causes of arbitrary arrests (detention orders or interim deadlines exhausted). It was to investigate strategies within the framework of the prevention and combating of crime, questioning the placement of governmental institutions, the agents of criminal control (Police, prosecutors, Judiciary Powers and Agents of the Order of Lawyers), as well as the policies of detention and of civil society organizations that shall ensure the observance of Human Rights. In methodological terms, is qualitative approach was chosen for assisted by quantitative approach in a comparative perspective. The data were collected through the following techniques: participant observation, document analysis and the literature review. In the case of instruments for the collection of data was used to interview technique.

Esta pesquisa analisa em perspectiva compara entre Moçambique e Brasil, a estrutura e o funcionamento das instituições do setor da administração da justiça, com ênfase nos procedimentos processuais adotados no âmbito da investigação criminal e/ou inquérito policial, e na decretação da prisão preventiva. A finalidade desta comparação é averiguar as diferenças e semelhanças, e aferir as causas das prisões arbitrárias (prisões preventivas ou provisórias com prazos esgotados). Tratou-se de investigar as estratégias no âmbito da prevenção e do combate ao crime, indagando o posicionamento das instituições governamentais, dos agentes do controle penal (Polícias, Ministério Público, Poderes Judiciários e Agentes da Ordem dos Advogados), assim como às políticas de reclusão e das organizações da sociedade civil que zelam pela observância dos direitos humanos. Em termos metodológicos, optou-se por uma abordagem qualitativa coadjuvada pelo método quantitativo numa perspectiva comparada. Os dados foram coletados por meio da utilização das técnicas de observação participante, análise documental e a revisão bibliográfica. No que respeita ao instrumento de recolha de dado foi usada a técnica de entrevista. / This research analyzes in perspective compares between Mozambique and Brazil, the structure and the functioning of the justice administration institutions sector, with an emphasis on procedures adopted in the context of a criminal investigation and/or Police investigation, and the declaring of pre-trial detention, whose purpose is to assess the differences and similarities, and assess the causes of arbitrary arrests (detention orders or interim deadlines exhausted). It was to investigate strategies within the framework of the prevention and combating of crime, questioning the placement of governmental institutions, the agents of criminal control (Police, prosecutors, Judiciary Powers and Agents of the Order of Lawyers), as well as the policies of detention and of civil society organizations that shall ensure the observance of Human Rights. In methodological terms, is qualitative approach was chosen for assisted by quantitative approach in a comparative perspective. The data were collected through the following techniques: participant observation, document analysis and the literature review. In the case of instruments for the collection of data was used to interview technique.

Esta pesquisa analisa em perspectiva compara entre Moçambique e Brasil, a estrutura e o funcionamento das instituições do setor da administração da justiça, com ênfase nos procedimentos processuais adotados no âmbito da investigação criminal e/ou inquérito policial, e na decretação da prisão preventiva. A finalidade desta comparação é averiguar as diferenças e semelhanças, e aferir as causas das prisões arbitrárias (prisões preventivas ou provisórias com prazos esgotados). Tratou-se de investigar as estratégias no âmbito da prevenção e do combate ao crime, indagando o posicionamento das instituições governamentais, dos agentes do controle penal (Polícias, Ministério Público, Poderes Judiciários e Agentes da Ordem dos Advogados), assim como às políticas de reclusão e das organizações da sociedade civil que zelam pela observância dos direitos humanos. Em termos metodológicos, optou-se por uma abordagem qualitativa coadjuvada pelo método quantitativo numa perspectiva comparada. Os dados foram coletados por meio da utilização das técnicas de observação participante, análise documental e a revisão bibliográfica. No que respeita ao instrumento de recolha de dado foi usada a técnica de entrevista. / This research analyzes in perspective compares between Mozambique and Brazil, the structure and the functioning of the justice administration institutions sector, with an emphasis on procedures adopted in the context of a criminal investigation and/or Police investigation, and the declaring of pre-trial detention, whose purpose is to assess the differences and similarities, and assess the causes of arbitrary arrests (detention orders or interim deadlines exhausted). It was to investigate strategies within the framework of the prevention and combating of crime, questioning the placement of governmental institutions, the agents of criminal control (Police, prosecutors, Judiciary Powers and Agents of the Order of Lawyers), as well as the policies of detention and of civil society organizations that shall ensure the observance of Human Rights. In methodological terms, is qualitative approach was chosen for assisted by quantitative approach in a comparative perspective. The data were collected through the following techniques: participant observation, document analysis and the literature review. In the case of instruments for the collection of data was used to interview technique.

Le pouvoir de détenir une personne à des fins d'enquête n'est pas une technique d'investigation nouvelle et tire son origine du droit anglais. Mais cette méthode d'enquête, qui consiste à restreindre temporairement la liberté de mouvement d'une personne que l'on soupçonne pour des motifs raisonnables d'être impliquée dans une activité criminelle, ne fut reconnue officiellement au Canada qu'en juillet 2004 suite au jugement rendu par la Cour suprême dans l'affaire R. c. Mann. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, cette stratégie d'enquête policière ne fait toujours pas l'objet d'une réglementation spécifique au Code criminel. L'approbation de cette technique d'enquête, en l'absence de toute forme de législation, ne s'est pas faite sans critiques de la part des auteurs et des commentateurs judiciaires qui y voient une intrusion dans un champ de compétences normalement réservé au Parlement. L'arrêt Mann laisse également en suspens une question cruciale qui se rapporte directement aux droits constitutionnels des citoyens faisant l'objet d'une détention semblable: il s'agit du droit d'avoir recours sans délai à l'assistance d'un avocat. Le présent travail se veut donc une étude approfondie du concept de la détention à des fins d'enquête en droit criminel canadien et de son impact sur les droits constitutionnels dont bénéficient les citoyens de notre pays. Pour accomplir cette tâche, l'auteur propose une analyse de la question en trois chapitres distincts. Dans le premier chapitre, l'auteur se penche sur le rôle et les fonctions dévolus aux agents de la paix qui exécutent leur mission à l'intérieur d'une société libre et démocratique comme celle qui prévaut au Canada. Cette étude permettra au lecteur de mieux connaître les principaux acteurs qui assurent le maintien de l'ordre sur le territoire québécois, les crimes qu'ils sont le plus souvent appelés à combattre ainsi que les méthodes d'enquête qu'ils emploient pour les réprimer. Le deuxième chapitre est entièrement dédié au concept de la détention à des fins d'enquête en droit criminel canadien. En plus de l'arrêt R. c. Mann qui fera l'objet d'une étude détaillée, plusieurs autres sujets en lien avec cette notion seront abordés. Des thèmes tels que la notion de «détention» au sens des articles 9 et 10b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la différence entre la détention à des fins d'enquête et l'arrestation, les motifs pouvant légalement justifier une intervention policière de même que les limites et l'entendue de la détention d'une personne pour fins d'enquête, seront aussi analysés. Au troisième chapitre, l'auteur se consacre à la question du droit d'avoir recours sans délai à l'assistance d'un avocat (et d'être informé de ce droit) ainsi que du droit de garder le silence dans des circonstances permettant aux agents de la paix de détenir une personne à des fins d'enquête. Faisant l'analogie avec d'autres jugements rendus par nos tribunaux, l'auteur suggère quelques pistes de solutions susceptibles de combler les lacunes qui auront été préalablement identifiées dans les arrêts Mann et Clayton. / The power to detain a person for investigative purposes is not a new technique of investigation and has its origin in English law. But this method of investigation, which is to temporarily restrict freedom of movement of a person suspected on reasonable grounds to be involved in criminal activity, was officially recognized in Canada in July 2004, following the judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of R. c. Mann. At the time of this writing, this strategy of investigation is not subject to specific regulations to the Criminal Code. The approval of this investigative technique, in the absence of any form of legislation, has not been without criticism from writers and commentators who see it as judicial intrusion into a field of expertise normally reserved for Parliament. The judgement of Mann also leaves open a critical issue that relates directly to the constitutional rights of citizens subjected to a similar kind of detention, namely the right to obtain immediately the assistance of a lawyer. This work is a thorough study of the concept of investigative detention in Canadian criminal law and its impact on the constitutional rights enjoyed by all citizens of our country. To accomplish this task, the author suggests studying this issue in three separate chapters. In the first chapter, the author focuses on the role and functions vested in the peace officers who carry out their mission within a free and democratic society such as the one which prevails in Canada. This study will allow the reader to better understand the main actors responsible for maintaining law and order in Quebec, the crimes they are most often called upon to fight and investigative methods they use to repress those crimes. The second chapter is dedicated to the concept of investigative detention in the context of Canadian criminal law. In addition to the case of R. c. Mann, which will be a study in detail, several other topics related to this concept will he discussed. Themes such as the notion of «detention» within the meaning of Sections 9 and 10b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the difference between the investigative detention and the arrest, the motives which can legally justify a police intervention as well as the limits of the detention of a person for purposes of investigation, will also he analyzed.. The third chapter is devoted to the question of the right to communicate immediately with a lawyer (and to he informed of that right) and the right to remain silent in circumstances enabling peace officers to detain a person for investigative purposes. In making a comparison with other judgments rendered by our courts, the author suggest some possible solutions that could fill gaps that have been previously identified by the Supreme Court in the cases R. c. Mann and R. c. Clayton.

Le pouvoir de détenir une personne à des fins d'enquête n'est pas une technique d'investigation nouvelle et tire son origine du droit anglais. Mais cette méthode d'enquête, qui consiste à restreindre temporairement la liberté de mouvement d'une personne que l'on soupçonne pour des motifs raisonnables d'être impliquée dans une activité criminelle, ne fut reconnue officiellement au Canada qu'en juillet 2004 suite au jugement rendu par la Cour suprême dans l'affaire R. c. Mann. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, cette stratégie d'enquête policière ne fait toujours pas l'objet d'une réglementation spécifique au Code criminel. L'approbation de cette technique d'enquête, en l'absence de toute forme de législation, ne s'est pas faite sans critiques de la part des auteurs et des commentateurs judiciaires qui y voient une intrusion dans un champ de compétences normalement réservé au Parlement. L'arrêt Mann laisse également en suspens une question cruciale qui se rapporte directement aux droits constitutionnels des citoyens faisant l'objet d'une détention semblable: il s'agit du droit d'avoir recours sans délai à l'assistance d'un avocat. Le présent travail se veut donc une étude approfondie du concept de la détention à des fins d'enquête en droit criminel canadien et de son impact sur les droits constitutionnels dont bénéficient les citoyens de notre pays. Pour accomplir cette tâche, l'auteur propose une analyse de la question en trois chapitres distincts. Dans le premier chapitre, l'auteur se penche sur le rôle et les fonctions dévolus aux agents de la paix qui exécutent leur mission à l'intérieur d'une société libre et démocratique comme celle qui prévaut au Canada. Cette étude permettra au lecteur de mieux connaître les principaux acteurs qui assurent le maintien de l'ordre sur le territoire québécois, les crimes qu'ils sont le plus souvent appelés à combattre ainsi que les méthodes d'enquête qu'ils emploient pour les réprimer. Le deuxième chapitre est entièrement dédié au concept de la détention à des fins d'enquête en droit criminel canadien. En plus de l'arrêt R. c. Mann qui fera l'objet d'une étude détaillée, plusieurs autres sujets en lien avec cette notion seront abordés. Des thèmes tels que la notion de «détention» au sens des articles 9 et 10b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, la différence entre la détention à des fins d'enquête et l'arrestation, les motifs pouvant légalement justifier une intervention policière de même que les limites et l'entendue de la détention d'une personne pour fins d'enquête, seront aussi analysés. Au troisième chapitre, l'auteur se consacre à la question du droit d'avoir recours sans délai à l'assistance d'un avocat (et d'être informé de ce droit) ainsi que du droit de garder le silence dans des circonstances permettant aux agents de la paix de détenir une personne à des fins d'enquête. Faisant l'analogie avec d'autres jugements rendus par nos tribunaux, l'auteur suggère quelques pistes de solutions susceptibles de combler les lacunes qui auront été préalablement identifiées dans les arrêts Mann et Clayton. / The power to detain a person for investigative purposes is not a new technique of investigation and has its origin in English law. But this method of investigation, which is to temporarily restrict freedom of movement of a person suspected on reasonable grounds to be involved in criminal activity, was officially recognized in Canada in July 2004, following the judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of R. c. Mann. At the time of this writing, this strategy of investigation is not subject to specific regulations to the Criminal Code. The approval of this investigative technique, in the absence of any form of legislation, has not been without criticism from writers and commentators who see it as judicial intrusion into a field of expertise normally reserved for Parliament. The judgement of Mann also leaves open a critical issue that relates directly to the constitutional rights of citizens subjected to a similar kind of detention, namely the right to obtain immediately the assistance of a lawyer. This work is a thorough study of the concept of investigative detention in Canadian criminal law and its impact on the constitutional rights enjoyed by all citizens of our country. To accomplish this task, the author suggests studying this issue in three separate chapters. In the first chapter, the author focuses on the role and functions vested in the peace officers who carry out their mission within a free and democratic society such as the one which prevails in Canada. This study will allow the reader to better understand the main actors responsible for maintaining law and order in Quebec, the crimes they are most often called upon to fight and investigative methods they use to repress those crimes. The second chapter is dedicated to the concept of investigative detention in the context of Canadian criminal law. In addition to the case of R. c. Mann, which will be a study in detail, several other topics related to this concept will he discussed. Themes such as the notion of «detention» within the meaning of Sections 9 and 10b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the difference between the investigative detention and the arrest, the motives which can legally justify a police intervention as well as the limits of the detention of a person for purposes of investigation, will also he analyzed.. The third chapter is devoted to the question of the right to communicate immediately with a lawyer (and to he informed of that right) and the right to remain silent in circumstances enabling peace officers to detain a person for investigative purposes. In making a comparison with other judgments rendered by our courts, the author suggest some possible solutions that could fill gaps that have been previously identified by the Supreme Court in the cases R. c. Mann and R. c. Clayton.

Canada’s experience in the war against terrorism goes back to the seventies, and continues to develop nowadays, with the last direct terrorist activity in 2017. The Canadian Government reacted to these terrorist attacks by enacting a number of statutes that reflect a changing international paradigm in relation to the fight against terrorism. Fundamental rights and liberties such as the freedom of expression, the right to private life and to personal freedom have been curtailed by these legislative measures. The practical consequences of these measures are analyzed via a comparative examination of the Inter-American System of Human Rights. In general terms, the war against terrorism produces significant impacts over the human rights. / La experiencia de Canadá en la lucha contra el terrorismo se remonta a inicios de la década de los setenta y se desarrolla hasta la época actual (los acontecimientos más recientes han tenido lugar en el año 2017). Las medidas legislativas fueron la vía adoptada por parte de Canadá para contrarrestar los ataques y reflejar el cambio de paradigma político en la esfera internacional con relación al fenómeno del terrorismo. Derechos fundamentales como el derecho a la libre expresión, a la vida privada y a la libertad personal se encuentran particularmente afectados por estas medidas. Un análisis comparativo del sistema canadiense y el sistema interamericano permite identificar las consecuencias de estas medidas. En términos más amplios, la lucha contra el terrorismo genera impactos significativos sobre los derechos humanos en general.