The Art of Promoting Defective Procedural Activity in a First Statement Hearing

In recent times, we have seen an increase in defective procedural activity in first statement hearings. As such, it is essential to understand how to promote and address these defects effectively.

A specific example that can be used to illustrate this concept is the case where an accused person has declared and been interrogated by both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the defense. In such a scenario, the defense does not give the floor to the judge to formulate an interrogation and move on to the next stage of the first statement hearing. Instead, the Public Prosecutor's Office gets the floor, allowing them to question the accused while the defense waits.

At this point, it is crucial for the defense to interpose procedural defects in order to prevent further harm to the accused. In our case, the defense requests that the judge grant them the floor at this moment. When they do, they can argue and demonstrate the need to bind the accused to the process or not. This involves determining whether there is a probability of ordering an indictment against the accused.

However, in this particular scenario, it has already happened that the Public Prosecutor's Office gave the accused the floor, allowing them to question the accused while the defense waits. The defense believes that this was a defective procedural activity due to the fact that the creator (the judge) was not given the floor by adhesion. This means that the Public Prosecutor's Office carried out their interrogation under the premise that they had been granted the floor, which is not the case.

To address this defect, the defense requests that it be declared valid and that the actions taken as a result of this defective procedural activity be annulled at this moment. They also request that the creator by adhesion carry out the interrogation that corresponds to the law based on article 282 of the criminal code. This is because the flawed act in question is basically the fact that the judge has passed a procedural stage without allowing the defense to participate fully.

The prosecution argues that the accused declared the Ministry, which gave them the floor. However, this is not entirely accurate. The Public Prosecutor's Office was given the floor by the judge, but they were also supposed to give way to the defense. Instead, the defense waits while the Public Prosecutor's Office questions the accused. This creates a procedural vice that the defense is trying to describe.

The key issue here is the lack of adhesion in allowing the creator (the judge) to carry out their interrogation under the premise that they had been granted the floor. This means that the Public Prosecutor's Office carried out their interrogation without fully considering the defense's rights and participation. The defense believes that this is a defective procedural activity due to the fact that it was not properly carried out.

In conclusion, promoting and addressing defective procedural activity in first statement hearings requires careful consideration of the rights and participation of all parties involved. By understanding the importance of adhesion and the need for full participation from the defense, we can ensure that these defects are addressed effectively and that justice is served.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enDistinguished students, we are going to give anDistinguished students, we are going to give anDistinguished students, we are going to give anexample of how to promote aexample of how to promote aexample of how to promote adefective procedural activity in adefective procedural activity in adefective procedural activity in afirst statement hearing, which is what we havefirst statement hearing, which is what we havefirst statement hearing, which is what we haveseen recently. For example, theseen recently. For example, theseen recently. For example, thespecific example we have is inspecific example we have is inspecific example we have is ina firsta firsta firststatementstatementstatementand after the accused Sorry afterand after the accused Sorry afterand after the accused Sorry afterthe accused has declared and has beenthe accused has declared and has beenthe accused has declared and has beeninterrogated by the Public Prosecutor's Officeinterrogated by the Public Prosecutor's Officeinterrogated by the Public Prosecutor's Officeby the defense, the defense of the judge does notby the defense, the defense of the judge does notby the defense, the defense of the judge does notgive the floor to the adhesive quante togive the floor to the adhesive quante togive the floor to the adhesive quante toformulate an interrogation and moves on to theformulate an interrogation and moves on to theformulate an interrogation and moves on to thenext stage of the firstnext stage of the firstnext stage of the firststatement, which is to give the floorstatement, which is to give the floorstatement, which is to give the floorto the procedural subjects toto the procedural subjects toto the procedural subjects toargue and demonstrate theargue and demonstrate theargue and demonstrate theneed to bind the accused to the process or not,need to bind the accused to the process or not,need to bind the accused to the process or not,suppose that this has already happenedsuppose that this has already happenedsuppose that this has already happenedat this moment, then I am going toat this moment, then I am going toat this moment, then I am going tointerpose the proceduralinterpose the proceduralinterpose the proceduraldefects, then I do the following,defects, then I do the following,defects, then I do the following,Mr. Judge. I need you to grant me theMr. Judge. I need you to grant me theMr. Judge. I need you to grant me thefloor at this moment, then youfloor at this moment, then youfloor at this moment, then yougrant me the floor and I say, Lord Judge,grant me the floor and I say, Lord Judge,grant me the floor and I say, Lord Judge,in those moments, as you wanted, an adhesive, Iin those moments, as you wanted, an adhesive, Iin those moments, as you wanted, an adhesive, Iinterpose defective procedural activity,interpose defective procedural activity,interpose defective procedural activity,taking into account that we aretaking into account that we aretaking into account that we arein a procedural stage, where thein a procedural stage, where thein a procedural stage, where theuse of the floor is being granted to theuse of the floor is being granted to theuse of the floor is being granted to theprocedural subjects so that they can argue andprocedural subjects so that they can argue andprocedural subjects so that they can argue anddemonstrate the need to link thedemonstrate the need to link thedemonstrate the need to link theprocess to the person of the accused In other words, why does the person of the accusedprocess to the person of the accused In other words, why does the person of the accusedprocess to the person of the accused In other words, why does the person of the accusedexist?exist?exist?Determine so that the judgeDetermine so that the judgeDetermine so that the judgedetermines whether there is a probability ofdetermines whether there is a probability ofdetermines whether there is a probability ofordering an indictmentordering an indictmentordering an indictmentagainst the accused, but it turns out, Mr.against the accused, but it turns out, Mr.against the accused, but it turns out, Mr.Judge, that the accused declared the Ministry,Judge, that the accused declared the Ministry,Judge, that the accused declared the Ministry,you gave the public prosecutor the floor.you gave the public prosecutor the floor.you gave the public prosecutor the floor.so that I should question him and theso that I should question him and theso that I should question him and thetechnical defense as well, but not thetechnical defense as well, but not thetechnical defense as well, but not thequate, because I believe that it is a defectquate, because I believe that it is a defectquate, because I believe that it is a defectwithin the procedure and thatwithin the procedure and thatwithin the procedure and thatprocedural vice that I am going to describeprocedural vice that I am going to describeprocedural vice that I am going to describeright now that I am describing, whichright now that I am describing, whichright now that I am describing, whichconsists of the fact that the creator was not given theconsists of the fact that the creator was not given theconsists of the fact that the creator was not given thefloor. by adhesion so that hefloor. by adhesion so that hefloor. by adhesion so that hecan carry out hisinterrogation under that premise at thisinterrogation under that premise at thisinterrogation under that premise at thistime eh I request that in thistime eh I request that in thistime eh I request that in thisdefective procedural activity itdefective procedural activity itdefective procedural activity itbe declared valid and as abe declared valid and as abe declared valid and as aconsequence of that ehconsequence of that ehconsequence of that ehthe actions taken be annulled at this moment andthe actions taken be annulled at this moment andthe actions taken be annulled at this moment andallow the creator byallow the creator byallow the creator byadhesion eh carry outadhesion eh carry outadhesion eh carry outthe interrogation that in lawthe interrogation that in lawthe interrogation that in lawcorresponds to this based oncorresponds to this based oncorresponds to this based onarticle 282 of the criminal salt codearticle 282 of the criminal salt codearticle 282 of the criminal salt codebasically here the flawed actbasically here the flawed actbasically here the flawed actis basicallythe fact that the judge has passedthe fact that the judge has passedthe fact that the judge has passeda procedural stage as I explaineda procedural stage as I explaineda procedural stage as I explainedpreviously, which is the argumentpreviously, which is the argumentpreviously, which is the argumentto decide whether to dictate self-prestigeI hope it is very useful\n"