Bill 539.

Summary.

The bill amends Articles 7, 8, and 9 of Law 40 of 1999. It proposes applying the special regime to persons who had turned ten but had not yet turned eighteen when the alleged offense was committed. It would also cover persons who turn eighteen during proceedings and adults accused of acts committed within that age range. For proceedings, penalties, and their enforcement, it distinguishes a group from age ten to before age twelve and another from age twelve to before age eighteen. The younger group would receive reeducation and social reintegration measures supervised by the National Secretariat for Children, Adolescents and the Family (Secretaría Nacional de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia). These include family strengthening, therapeutic, educational, and recreational programs, and service to the community or public schools. The adolescent prosecutor could request treatment under the older age group where minimal signs of maturity or awareness are established, according to the offense.

Persons under ten would remain exempt from criminal responsibility, while civil liability arising from their acts could fall on their parents or those exercising parental authority. Children’s and adolescents’ judges would impose reeducation measures aimed at preventing further offending through individualized care, community education, and family strengthening. The Secretariat for Children, Adolescents and the Family (Secretaría de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia) would carry out the related actions. The bill also amends the juvenile criminal judge’s jurisdiction over complaints and reports concerning persons from age ten to before age eighteen. If it is established during trial that the act occurred after the accused turned eighteen, the file would be sent to the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. If the person under investigation had not turned twelve, the judge would ask the relevant children’s and adolescents’ judge to take jurisdiction.

The amendment to Article 58 lists precautionary measures that the adolescent prosecutor or juvenile criminal judge could order on their own initiative. They concern a change of residence or limits on movement; restrictions on visiting places or contacting specified people; enrollment and attendance in education or vocational training; seeking employment; abstaining from alcohol or addictive substances; and medical care or rehabilitation for drug dependence. Article 61 would allow the prosecutor to order pretrial detention for specified offenses where a demonstrated need for a precautionary measure exists. It would also allow detention after a breach attributable to the adolescent of an earlier measure, provided the offense permits such detention in ordinary criminal proceedings. For other listed offenses, it calls for detention to be applied directly. In cases of aggravated intentional homicide, it refers to penalties under the Criminal Code (Código Penal).

Article 62 retains pretrial detention as an exceptional measure for the stated cases or where a threat to public safety is established, and bars its use to conduct a psychosocial assessment. The prosecutor would send an authenticated copy of the file to the judge within forty-eight hours; the judge would have three calendar days to confirm, change, or revoke the measure. Articles 67 and 69 address referral to a children’s and adolescents’ judge on grounds of age, social risk, or capacity for culpability, and the circumstances in which the prosecutor could exercise prosecutorial discretion by issuing a reasoned decision to close the file. Article 72 addresses early termination of proceedings through conciliation.

The public bodies concerned include the two named child and family secretariats, adolescent prosecutors and judges, children’s and adolescents’ judges, and the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. The provisions could be of interest to adolescents and their families, educational institutions, care and rehabilitation services, and organizations involved in juvenile criminal justice.