The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice established that the Court of Appeal failed to observe constitutional provisions and those contained in international agreements on human rights, thereby violating the right to appeal to a higher court than the plaintiff and private accuser, since, in accordance with jurisprudential criteria, the declaration of extinction of the criminal action or its refusal is likely to be appealed before the corresponding Court of Appeal.
In this sense, the aforementioned room of the high court, through the Judgment no. 001-022-2021-SSEN-01287 dated October 29, 2021, married with the dispatch of the resolution issued by the Court of Appeal for violation of criminal procedural regulations and non-observance of constitutional provisions, by declaring that the appeal against a declaratory judgment of termination of the criminal action.
According to the judgment, “the current criminal procedural regulations do not expressly contemplate that the decisions in which, regardless of the cause invoked, the courts of the first degree rule on the extinction of the criminal action.”
“Any judge or court – the opinion continues – can grant a differentiated judicial protection (special procedure), when due to its particularities, the case warrants it, adopting ex officio, the measures that are necessary to guarantee the full enjoyment of the rights fundamental; being able in such cases and in accordance with the constant constitutional and judicial jurisprudence, to guarantee the citizen access to an effective remedy and the right to have a hierarchically superior court examine the decision that harms him.
The decision was adopted by judges Francisco Antonio Jerez Mena, who presides over the Chamber; and judges Fran Euclides Soto Sánchez, María Garabito Ramírez, Francisco Antonio Ortega Polanco and Moisés Ferrer Landrón.
