O Brasil vem atravessando um dos momentos mais conturbados de sua história. Um país fragilizado, dividido e sem um consenso acerca da necessidade urgente de reformas estruturais de base, em especial, acerca do modo como vêm dispostos internamente os seus órgãos políticos de Estado. As instituições estão dispostas irracionalmente e sem coerência, permitindo a indevida cumulação (fusão) das funções de chefia de Estado, de chefia de governo e de gestão da Administração Pública em mãos de uma Presidência da República. Tratam-se de funções com finalidades, princípios e protocolos de trabalho complemente diversos, não podendo jamais serem cumuladas da forma como se encontram. A separação Estado, governo e Administração Pública é, portanto, medida que se impõe e a única saída possível para dotar o país da estabilidade e do consensus necessários para vencer as suas violentas crises. / Brazil has been going through one of the most troubled times in its history. A fragile and divided country without a consensus for basic structural reforms that are greatly needed, or rather, the way in which its political organs of state are internally disposed. Institutions are disposed irrationally and without coherence, allowing Presidency of the Republic office cumulates the functions of head of state, head of government and management of public administration. These are functions with completely different purposes, principles and protocols of work, which cannot be cumulated under one office. The separation of State, Government and Public Administration is therefore a necessary measure and the only possible way out to give the country the stability and consensus needed to overcome its violent crises.

Cette étude de l’impartialité des magistrats dans la procédure pénale française à l’aune du droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme propose une analyse renouvelée de ce principe, clé de voûte, d’un procès pénal juste.Tout d’abord, l’objet de l’étude induit de définir le principe d’impartialité grâce au droit conventionnel. Ce dernier a forgé le principe d’impartialité et est encore retentissant en la matière. Cependant, la théorisation d’ampleur des appréciations conventionnelles relatives à l’impartialité faisant défaut, la présente étude a vocation de remédier à cette carence. La définition conventionnelle de l’impartialité sert de socle à la présente étude et l’analyse de la jurisprudence conventionnelle, relative à l’impartialité, permettra de déterminer les points de convergence ou de divergence entre le droit conventionnel et le droit français. Ensuite, l’impartialité est soutenue, permise par divers principes de procédures ; l’indépendance, la collégialité, la publicité, la motivation, la séparation des fonctions, l’oralité, le contradictoire, qui n’ont pas la même intensité selon la procédure pénale envisagée. L’étude de la teneur des principes procéduraux soutiens de l’impartialité, devant les juridictions de droit commun et les juridictions spécialisées, permet de déterminer les disparités de garanties de l’impartialité dans la procédure pénale française. En outre, la question de l’impartialité des magistrats avant le jugement se pose avec beaucoup d’acuité. D’une part, le droit conventionnel s’est prononcé récemment sur l’extension ou non du principe d’impartialité en amont du jugement. D’autre part, le juge d’instruction dont la suppression est souvent envisagée comme une solution favorable à la procédure pénale, par ceux qui souhaitent le voir disparaitre, n’est pas opportune au regard du principe d’impartialité. L’étude permettra de démontrer que la phase d’instruction, bien que perfectible, apporte, une réelle plus-value à l’impartialité dans la procédure pénale et qu’au contraire, l’impartialité des magistrats du parquet est soit sporadique, soit absente. / This study about magistrates impartiality in the french criminal procedure in the light of the law of the European Convention on Human Rights focuses on a renewed analysis of this key principle during a fair trial.Firstly, the object of this study leads to the definition of the principle of impartiality thanks to the law of the ECHR that still molds it.However, the absence of theorising conventional appreciations regarding impartiality leads us to find a solution to this deficiency. The conventional definition of impartiality serves as a base to this study. The analysis of the ECHR jurisprudence regarding impartiality enables the determination of the converging and divergent elements between french and conventional law.Furthermore, impartiality is allowed thanks to various procedural principles : independance, collegiality, public disclosure, motivation, the separation between presiding judges and the prosecution services, orality, hearings in court with both parties. The study of the content of procedural principles as a support to impartiality, during proceedings in front of common and specialized jurisdictions, enables the determination of the differences of the garanties of impartiality during the french criminal procedure.In addition, the question of the magistrates impartiality before judgement has to be tackled with much acuteness. This is the reason why the suppression of the examining judge (juge d’instruction), often wanted by some, is not appropriate as far as impartiality is concerned. This study shows and proves that the inquiry, even if improvable, brings a real added-value to impartiality during the criminal procedure and that, on the contrary the prosecution services impartiality is either sporadic or absent.