Search

In the police investigation, as a rule, the accused or investigated person has not yet been formally accused, but is being investigated so that this condition takes effect or not, not to mention the possibility that the procedure may serve as a basis for the adoption of serious measures, such as the decree of preventive detention, by the Judiciary. Refuting the application of the adversarial and full defense principles in the investigation phase may represent a situation of imbalance in relation to the exercise of the State's right to punish, although the adoption of certain measures must be admitted so that the criminal prosecution is not compromised, such as preserving the secrecy of an ongoing telephone intercept, for example. Finding a balance between the interests of the indicted or investigated individual and the State in the criminal procedural relationship may represent a fairer path to the realization of the Democratic Rule of Law. From this perspective, the objective of this work is to analyze the possibility or not of applying the principles of contradictory and full defense in the context of a police investigation. The methodology consists of a literature review, through the analysis of doctrine, jurisprudence and academic works, using the hypothetical-deductive method, concluding, in the end, that it is necessary to rethink the inapplicability of the contradictory and the full defense indiscriminately, considering the possibility of violating fundamental rights and guarantees in certain situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An unprecedented decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice deals with the application of arbitration in consumer law: once the option for arbitration is accepted, after the conclusion of the agreement, the consumer can no longer bring this matter to court, with a new exception to access to justice as a fundamental right as a counterpoint to the fact that consumer protection is a norm of public order. The study analyzes Special Appeal No. 1,742,547, deepening the verification of arbitration as a mechanism to enforce consumer rights and the principle of reasonable duration of the process. To support the study, a literature review involving phenomena related to the theme had been carried out, also using the inductive method for argumentation. The results pointed to two currents of analysis involving access to justice, one that considers access to justice as a synonym for access to the Judiciary and another that considers it in a broader character, with the arbitration institute being applicable. However, in fact, it was understood that arbitration is a valid mechanism for the enforcement of Consumer Rights and compliance with the Reasonable Principle of the Process, with this institute being more beneficial than the judicial process, as long as they are complied with some fundamental requirements, such as the parties' autonomy of will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]