Commentary on Judgment No. 16140 of 2022: The Appointment of Counsel for Fugitives
The judgment No. 16140 of December 22, 2022, filed on April 17, 2023, provides important clarifications regarding the ability to appoint a defense attorney on behalf of a fugitive suspect. In particular, the Court established that, pursuant to Article 96, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this ability is strictly limited to cases where the suspect is in detention, thus excluding fugitives. This decision has raised questions and points of reflection on the actual balance between the right to defense and public order requirements.
The Regulatory Context and the Court's Decision
The provision in question, Article 96, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that next of kin may appoint a defense attorney for the suspect, but only in situations of personal freedom restriction. The Court emphasized the exceptional nature of this provision, which is designed to guarantee the right to defense in difficult circumstances, such as detention. The Court, therefore, deemed that an extensive interpretation of the provision, applicable also to fugitives, is not justifiable.
Appointment ability by a next of kin in favor of a fugitive suspect - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. The ability of next of kin to appoint, pursuant to Article 96, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defense attorney in the interest of the suspect exclusively concerns individuals "in vinculis" and not fugitives, as this provision has an exceptional nature, being strictly linked to the difficulty of personally designating a defense attorney by the person subject to the condition of personal freedom restriction and, therefore, is incapable of analogical interpretation. (In application of this principle, the Court found the decision regarding the inadmissibility of the request to revoke the declaration of fugitive status presented by the defense attorney appointed by the next of kin of the suspect to be free from criticism).
The Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has several significant implications:
- It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules in guaranteeing the right to defense.
- It excludes the possibility of appointing a defense attorney for fugitive suspects, increasing pressure on these individuals to face trial.
- It establishes a legal precedent that limits the analogical application of provisions in favor of suspects in a state of fugitive status.
In this way, the Court reiterated the principle that the protection of the rights of suspects must occur within the framework of existing regulations, avoiding interpretations that could undermine legal certainty.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 16140 of 2022 represents an important step in defining the limits of the ability to appoint a defense attorney, highlighting the distinction between detention and fugitive situations. This decision not only clarifies existing regulations but also invites reflection on the ways of accessing justice and the protection of suspects' rights. It is essential for legal practitioners to take note of these indications to ensure adequate defense in compliance with the regulatory framework.
