A intervenção dos orgãos de polícia criminal em sede de julgamento

Currently, Portugal assumes itself as a democratic rule of substantive law State, sustained by a legal system seeking the right balance between the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms constitutional foreseen in Portugal’s Fundamental Law and criminal persecution. The architecture of the penal code lies with, roughly speaking, a accusatory basic structure, “deliberately attached to one of the most remarkable achievements of the civilizational democratic progress, and by obedience to the constitutional commandment”, in balance with the official investigation principle, valid both for the purpose of prosecution and trial. Regarding the principle of non self-incrimination - nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare, briefly defined as the defendant’s right of not being obliged to contribute to the self-incrimination, it should be stressed that there isn’t an explicit consecration in the Portuguese Constitution, being commonly accepted in an implicit constitutional prediction and deriving from other constitutional rights and principles, first and foremost, the meaning and scope of the concept of democratic rule of Law State, embedded in the Fundamental Law, and in the guidelines of the constitutional principles of human person dignity, freedom of action and the presumption of innocence. In any case, about the (in) applicability of the principle of the prohibition of self-incrimination to the Criminal Police Bodies in the trial hearing in Court, and sharing an idea of Guedes Valente, the truth is that the exercise of criminal action must tread a transparent path and non-compliant with methods to obtain evidence that violate the law, the public order or in violation of democratic principles and loyalty (Guedes Valente, 2013, p. 484). Within the framework of the penal process relating to the trial, which is assumed as the true phase of the process, the witness represents a relevant figure for the administration of criminal justice, for the testimonial proof is, in the idea of Othmar Jauernig, the worst proof of evidence, but also being the most frequent (Jauernig, 1998, p. 289). As coadjutant of the Public Prosecutor and, in specific cases, the investigating judge, the Criminal Police Bodies are invested with high responsibility, being "the arms and eyes of Judicial Authorities in pursuing the criminal investigation..." which has as ultimate goal the fulfillment of the Law pursuing the defense of society" (Guedes Valente, 2013, p. 485). It is in this context and as a witness that, throughout operational career, the Criminal Police Bodies are required to be at the trial hearing and clarify the Court with its view about the facts relating to occurrences of criminal context, thus contributing very significantly and, in some cases, decisively for the proper administration of the portuguese criminal justice. With regards to the intervention of Criminal Police Bodies in the trial hearing in Court, it’s important that they pay attention to a set of standards concerning the preparation of the testimony, the very provision of the testimony and, also, to its conclusion. Be emphasized that these guidelines may become crucial for the quality of the police testimony at the trial hearing, thus leading to an improvement of the enforcement of justice system. In this vein, while preparing the testimony, the Criminal Police Bodies must present itself in court with proper clothing, to read before and carefully the case files, to debate the facts being judged with other Criminal Police Bodies and prepare potential questions. Later, while giving his testimony during the trial, the Criminal Police Bodies must, summing up, to take the oath in a convincing manner, to feel comfortable, to start well by convincingly answering the first question, keep an attitude of serenity, to adopt an attitude of collaboration, to avoid the reading of documents, to demonstrate deference and seriousness before the judicial operators, to use simple and objective language, to adopt a fluent speech, to use nonverbal language correctly, to avoid spontaneity responding only to what is asked, to report only the truth, to avoid hesitations and contradictions, to be impartial and to maintain eye contact with the judge. Finally, at the conclusion of the testimony, the Criminal Police Bodies should rise in a smooth manner, avoiding to show relief, resentment or satisfaction, leaving a credible and professional image and, without much formality, requesting the judge permission to leave the courtroom. As final note, it’s important to stress that "The intervention of the Police Criminal Bodies in the trial hearing in Court” encloses itself on a theme of crucial importance not only for members of the Police and Security Forces, who must welcome this subject with the utmost seriousness and professionalism, but also for the proper administration of the criminal justice system in Portugal.

Construção de uma responsabilidade europeia além-fronteiras

The suppression of internal border controls has led the European Union to establish a mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for examining each asylum application, with the main intention of deterring asylum seekers from lodging multiple applications and guaranteeing that it will be assessed by one of the States – the Dublin System. Even though it holds on a variety of criteria, the most commonly used is the country of first entrance in the EU. The growing migrating flows coming mainly from Northern Africa have thus resulted in an incommensurable burden over the border countries. Gradually, countries like Greece, Bulgaria and Italy have lost capability of providing adequate relief to all asylum seekers and the records of fundamental rights violations related to the provision of housing and basic needs or inhuman detention conditions started piling up. To prevent asylum seekers who had already displaced themselves to other Member States from being transferred back to countries where their human dignity is questionable, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have developed a solid jurisprudence determining that when there is a risk of serious breach of fundamental rights all transfers to that country must halt, especially when it is identified with systemic deficiencies in the asylum system and procedures. This reflexion will go through the jurisprudence that influenced very recent legislative amendments, in order to identify which elements form part of the obligation not to transfer under the Dublin System. At last, we will critically analyze the new rising obligation, that has clearly proven insufficient in light of the international fundamental rights framework that the Member States and the EU are bound to respect, proposing substantial amendments with a view to reach a future marked by high solidarity and global responsibility from the European Union.