Nekaltumo prezumpcija – pamatinis ir visuotinai pripažįstamas baudžiamosios teisės principas, įtvirtintas tarptautiniuose teisės tiek nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose. Šio principo postulatas reikalauja asmenį laikyti nekaltu, jei neįrodoma priešingai ir suponuoja būtinų procesinių taisyklių laikymąsi nustatant tam tikras proceso dalyvių teises ir pareigas. Tačiau nekaltumo prezumpcijos principas turi tam tikrų prieštaravimų, kurių esminis yra tai, kad baudžiamajame procese greta nekaltumo prezumpcijos egzistuoja jos antipodas - kaltumo prezumpcija. Jei tokios nebūtų, būtų neįmanomą prieš asmenį pradėti baudžiamąjį procesą ir taikyti jam procesines prievartos priemones. Vadinasi nekaltumo prezumpcija nėra ir negali būti suabsoliutinama baudžiamajame procese, tačiau visgi ji būtina kaip asmens teisių garantas. Šiuolaikinėje baudžiamojoje teisėje, nors ir suvokiama nekaltumo prezumpcijos svarba žmogaus teisių užtikrinimo kontekste ir vienų mokslininkų laikoma objektyvia ir visuotinai privaloma teisine nuostata, visgi yra manančių, kad nekaltumo prezumpcija yra viso labo tik fikcija, neturinti praktinės reikšmės. Be to nekaltumo prezumpcija nebegalioja tik nuo to momento kai įsiteisėja kaltumą konstatuojantis teismo nuosprendis. Vadinasi kol vyksta ikiteisminis tyrimas, ar teismo procesas, daugelis aplinkybių dar nėra pilnutinai ištirtos, taigi nesibaigus teisminiam nagrinėjimui išlieka didėlė tikimybė nekaltai apkaltinti asmenį. Todėl praktikoje dažnai kyla nekaltumo prezumpcijos... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The presumption of innocence is the fundamental and general principle in the criminal law which is recognized both: internationally and nationally. The presumption of innocence - is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that there should be the certain and strict rules followed in the process while settling the rights and obligations of the participants of the criminal procedures. However this principle has some contradictions with other principles. The essential contradiction is with the presumption of guilt. Without the presumption of guilt there would be impossible to start the criminal proceedings and to impose coercive measures against any person. So the presumption of innocence is not and can not be considered as absolute principle, but the one which guarantees the implementation of certain rights of the person in criminal proceedings. Even though in modern criminal law the importance of the presumption of innocence to ensure human rights is realized and principle is considered as universally binding legal provision by many researchers, some researches express the opinion that presumption of innocence is pure fiction and that it has no practical significance. The presumption of innocence proceeds until someone is found guilty by final and valid court decision. Taking into the consideration mentioned above during the pre-trial investigation or during the trial many factors have not yet been fully explored and... [to full text]

L’article 6§2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme affirme que « toute personne est présumée innocente des faits qui lui sont reprochés jusqu’à ce que sa culpabilité ait été légalement établie ». Consacré sur le plan international et sur le plan national, le principe de présomption d’innocence est une constante dans les droits des pays du Conseil de l’Europe et il est le principe directeur de la procédure pénale. Néanmoins l’enjeu du procès pénal repose sur la recherche d'un équilibre entre les intérêts de la société et le primat de l'individu. À ce titre, l’opposition éternelle entre les intérêts de la société et celle du citoyen ainsi que la confrontation du principe avec d’autres principes fondamentaux (droit à l’information pour les journalistes) tendent à amoindrir la valeur de la présomption d’innocence. Malheureusement, l’affaiblissement de l’effectivité du principe s’observe sur l’ensemble des États membres, ce qui est d’autant plus inquiétant. C’est pourquoi, à travers cette thèse, j’ai voulu démontrer que le rôle du Conseil de l’Europe va au-delà de la simple exigence du respect des minimas imposés, il a un impact réel sur le droit positif de chaque État membre et il doit jouer un rôle plus affirmé pour renforcer les principes fondamentaux qu’il proclame. L’harmonisation des droits internes par le Conseil de l’Europe est une solution à envisager afin de renforcer l’effectivité du principe de présomption d’innocence. Bien que les prérogatives du Conseil de l’Europe soient limitées et que la rivalité avec l’Union européenne ne facilite pas l’objectif, il demeure le moteur principal en matière de promotion des droits de l’homme et l’impact de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne en est une illustration. / Article 6§2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that "everyone is presumed innocent of the facts alleged against him until his guilt has been legally established". Dedicated internationally and nationally, the principle of the presumption of innocence is a constant in the countries rights of Council of Europe and is the guiding principle of criminal procedure. Nevertheless, the issue of the criminal trial lies in the search for a balance between the interests of society and the primacy of the individual. As such, the eternal opposition between the interests of the society and the citizen as well as the confrontation of the principle with other fundamental principles (right to information for journalists) tend to undermine the value of the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, the weakening affecting the effectiveness of the principle is observed in all Member States, which is all the more worrying. That is why, through this thesis, I wanted to show that the role of the Council of Europe goes beyond the simple requirement of respecting minimum imposed standards, it has a real impact on the positive law of each state member and he must play a more assertive role to reinforce the fundamental principles it proclaims. The harmonization of internal laws by the Council of Europe is a solution to be considered in order to reinforce the effectiveness of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Although the prerogatives of the Council of Europe are limited and the rivalry with the European Union does not facilitate the objective, it remains the main engine for the promotion of human rights and the impact of the European Court case-law is an illustration of this.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:19:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jorge Carlos Carrasco.pdf: 773801 bytes, checksum: 0d393a8a2ee273afdb092b131de8393b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-10-18 / This paper proposes to address the constitutional principles in the prisons of interim nature under Brazilian law of criminal procedure. We aimed to establish the general objective points of reflection on the subject based on the analysis of necessity and uniqueness of precautionary detention, on the right to implement its temporary and possible conflict between that law and preserving the right to freedom. The specific objectives are delimited to present the history and characteristics of precautionary detention, its types and analyze the personal and social consequences of temporary detention. It was also subject of consideration the seriousness of the injunction, on an extremely exceptional character, imposed in order to establish the desired balance between the two duties of the State: - protection and security to society and security and protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the individuals it includes. The types of precautionary detention were reconsidered in light of the constitutional principles and guarantees by considering the purposes of preventive detention. According to the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court, the legitimacy of precautionary detention must be viewed based on the principle of non-culpability. It is necessary to study and demonstrate that precautionary detention is protected by its extraordinary character following the modern trends of Superior Courts of Law, attaching jurisprudence. For this research, we opted for bibliographical study on doctrines, jurisprudence and legislation pertinent to the theme. Thus, the study was justified and was relevant to show that all rules prior to the Federal Constitution which determines automatic and mandatory prison without real justification are revoked. All rules which prohibit the bail, when not justified in real need of arrest, such as those based solely on the seriousness of the crime, should be considered unconstitutional / O trabalho tem como proposta abordar os princípios constitucionais nas prisões de natureza cautelar previstas no ordenamento jurídico processual penal brasileiro. Procurou-se como objetivo geral estabelecer pontos de reflexão sobre o tema, a partir da análise da necessidade e excepcionalidade das prisões cautelares, do direito à sua execução provisória e eventual conflito entre esse direito e a preservação do direito de liberdade. Os objetivos específicos se delimitaram a apresentar o histórico e as características da prisão cautelar, suas espécies e analisar os reflexos pessoais e sociais da prisão preventiva. Foi também objeto de consideração a gravidade da medida cautelar, em caráter de extrema excepcionalidade, imposta com a finalidade pretendida de estabelecer o equilíbrio entre os dois deveres do Estado: - proteção e segurança à sociedade e garantia e proteção das liberdades e direitos fundamentais dos indivíduos que a integram. As espécies de prisão cautelar foram repensadas à luz dos princípios e garantias constitucionais considerando-se os fins da prisão preventiva. De acordo com o entendimento do Supremo Tribunal Federal, a legitimidade das prisões cautelares deve ser aferida tendo como norte o princípio da não culpabilidade. Procuramos estudar e demonstrar que as prisões cautelares são agasalhadas pelo manto da excepcionalidade seguindo as modernas tendências dos Superiores Tribunais, anexando para tanto jurisprudência pátria. Para o desenvolvimento desta pesquisa, optou-se pelo estudo bibliográfico em doutrinas, jurisprudências e legislações pertinentes à temática abordada. Assim, o estudo justificou-se e fez-se relevante para demonstrar que estão revogadas todas as normas anteriores à Constituição Federal que determinam a prisão processual automática e obrigatória sem justificação concreta. Devem ser consideradas inconstitucionais todas as normas que vedam a liberdade provisória, quando não justificadas na necessidade concreta da prisão, como aquelas baseadas exclusivamente na gravidade do delito