Royal Decree-Law 9 2020
***Lawyer, Master in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure (LLM), Universidad Diego Portales. Doctor in Law, Ernst-Mortitz-Arndt University of Greifswald, Germany. Research Professor at the Centro de Estudios de la Justicia of the Law School of the Universidad de Chile (Chile). [email protected]
Most of the European continental or common law legislations -such as those that will be the object of this study-, consider in their legislation the regulation of “alternative penalties”, which have different historical roots2.
The term “alternative penalties” can be used to conceive any sanction that does not imply deprivation of liberty. Although some authors use the generic term “alternatives to prison “3 , the concept is quite broad, insofar as it not only covers the sanctioning spectrum, but also considers other alternatives to prison that may be imposed during the criminal process, such as pretrial detention or some diversion mechanisms.
The constitution of 1828 takes up the liberal principles of the constitution of 1823.
The main objective of the economic policy developed by the government is to increase the welfare of citizens. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to promote a model of balanced and sustained growth, based on increased productivity and employment, which will make it possible to meet collective needs and promote greater social cohesion, while at the same time facilitating the response to the challenges arising from the ever-increasing economic integration in European and world markets.
In this context, urgent reforms are needed to make a firm commitment to the efficiency and competitiveness of financial and energy markets, as a mechanism to contribute to boosting productivity in the economic system as a whole, and thus address one of the main weaknesses of the economic growth model. These reforms are an indispensable instrument for mitigating the risks and taking advantage of the opportunities presented by the international economic scenario described above.
Regulation (EU) No 538/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts (
Regulation (EU) No 539/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on imports of rice originating in Bangladesh and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3491/90.
Regulation (EU) No 540/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 relating to the sound level of motor vehicles and replacement silencing systems, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directive 70/157/EEC (
In a clinical trial, the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of the subjects must be protected, and the data obtained must be reliable and robust. The interests of the trial subjects must take precedence over all other interests.
The definition of clinical trial in Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) needs to be clarified. To this end, the concept of clinical trial needs to be defined more precisely by introducing the broader concept of “clinical study”, of which the clinical trial is a category. And this category must be defined on the basis of specific criteria. This approach takes due account of international guidelines and is in line with EU law on medicinal products, which is based on the dichotomy “clinical trial” and “observational study”.
The reform of the criminal prosecution system, which represents one of the most relevant areas when judging the true level of democratic development of a country, is part of this framework of reasoning.
In this sense, it is interesting to highlight the set of topics involved in the institutional step that today, the Government and Parliament must take in order to pave the way for a new criminal prosecution system, built on the principles and ideas of a democracy based on the rule of law, authentically committed to respect for the rights of individuals and in which the constitutional bases of the justice system, such as the rules of due process, are the rule for measuring our institutional consolidation.
The current system of criminal procedure lacks objective conditions of impartiality, since it hands over to the same person the functions of investigating, accusing and sentencing. This person is the criminal judge who receives the background of the investigation, forms a conviction on the basis of such background, on the basis of such data determines the formulation of the corresponding accusation and, subsequently, it is the same judge who issues the respective sentence.