Bill 742.

Summary.

The bill adds a principle giving precedence to conflict resolution in the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal). Where legal and constitutional requirements are met, judicial authorities would favor mechanisms provided by that Code over unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings. Those mechanisms and other consensual forms of early termination could be proposed at any stage until the Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) declares the debate open. Judicial authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público) would apply the relevant provisions in a manner favoring conflict resolution, restoration of social peace, procedural economy, and rational use of judicial resources.

For withdrawal of the punitive claim, the bill sets the same deadline and lists the eligible offenses. They include negligent homicide, personal injury and negligent injury; property offenses including theft, misappropriation, fraud, usurpation, and damage; failure to perform family duties and lewd acts where the victim is an adult; and specified offenses involving contributions, intellectual property, reputation, the home, secrecy, and documents affecting private persons. During investigation and the intermediate phase, withdrawal would be submitted to the Guarantees Judge; during oral trial before the debate opens, it would go to the Trial Court. The competent authority would decide admissibility at an oral hearing with the parties present, by a decision not subject to appeal. If admitted, it would approve the agreement and declare the criminal action extinguished; otherwise, proceedings would continue.

For offenses allowing withdrawal, the Public Prosecutor’s Office would promote conciliation between victim and accused at a center chosen by the parties. Proceedings would be conditionally suspended for no more than one month while conciliation takes place. The criminal action would be extinguished only after the obligations recorded in the conciliation agreement are fulfilled; breach would resume the action, while performance would give the agreement res judicata effect. Depending on the stage, parties could ask the prosecutor, Guarantees Judge, or Trial Court to refer the dispute to the Alternative Conflict Resolution Centers of the Judicial Branch (Órgano Judicial) or the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or to legally recognized private mediation centers. The authority would assess whether the matter allows an agreement, refer the request through an Attention Protocol, and inform the parties of their rights and guarantees. Mediation would permit suspension for up to one month, extendable at the parties’ request for up to one further month to incorporate objective criteria for quantifying compensation. The file would then be closed unless a party seeks reactivation for breach. Suspension would also pause the limitation period for the criminal action, which would resume for the remaining time.

Through defense counsel, the accused could request conditional suspension of proceedings if the offense permits conditional suspension of execution of sentence under the Criminal Code (Código Penal), the accused admits the facts, and agrees to repair the damage. The Guarantees Judge or Trial Court could impose conditions even without a complete agreement with the victim. From the hearing at which charges are formulated, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the accused could agree on admission of facts and sentence, or on effective cooperation. The agreement would undergo judicial review; if approved, its effects could include a judgment, sentence reduction, or no charges, depending on the case. Where the accused must testify as the principal prosecution witness, the decision not to bring charges would depend on that testimony.

Before opening the trial, the Trial Court would ask about alternative resolutions and could suspend the hearing for up to thirty (30) business days to facilitate discussions. The bill would take effect on the day following its promulgation and would allow pending proceedings to use its mechanisms and time limits if the debate has not opened, while preserving the validity of procedural acts already completed. Through its institutional and statutory provisions, it concerns the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Judicial Branch, Trial Court, Criminal Procedure Code, and Criminal Code, and could affect victims, accused persons, defense counsel, and mediation centers.