>

>

In law, the witness is the person who testifies before a court on a number of facts that he knows and that some of the parties to the proceedings considers relevant to the resolution of the case on trial. There is both civil and criminal procedure, and his statement is called testimony. In this sense, every citizen has a duty to cooperate with judges and courts in the judicial process, duty is imposed by art. 118 of the Spanish Constitution, and which is embodied in obligations to appear, answer questions put to him and testify truthfully. However, as there are exceptions to every rule, and the witness is not required when mediate certain kinship ( per example, the statement against the spouse, parents, siblings) and when there waivers or prohibitions established by law (for example, professional secrecy). In criminal proceedings the testimony is, without doubt, the most important form of evidence and plays a key role in establishing the facts. That requires high importance to ensure conditions for which the testimony is given, the witness imposing a number of obligations whose breach can cause significant consequences, including criminal. Thus, the witness is under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, so not testifying truthfully, gives rise to an offence of perjury (art. 458 CP). Similarly, failure to appear in court (besides having rigged monetary fine for the control) can be constitutive of the crime of obstruction of justice (art. 463.1 CP) and shun the questions put to him may constitute a crime of disobedience (art. 556 CP). Those are legal consequences but, although it is not a matter of alarm the staff, the witness in a criminal proceeding involves a broader implications and odd own "risk" of the facts or persons indicted in the case in question it, anyone can escape to the fact that is not the same witnessing an accident, than witnessing those criminal cases related to organized crime: terrorism, drug trafficking, etc. . Given this and even though the witness has a duty to testify in trial room , in the presence of the accused also has the right to provide his statement freely, without coercion . That's why , starting from the utmost respect for the rights of defence of the accused, the need to provide adequate protection to witnesses , they need confidence and the certainty of receiving enough support , so that his cooperation with the tribunal does not harm his interests. The law determines the classification as a protected witness, which carries the possibility of remaining in view of the defendant, must be agreed upon by the judge expressly, as it can conflict with the rights of defence of the accused. The condition of citizen gives us obligations that we must fulfil faithfully, but also rights that the establish authorities must guarantee, in all aspects that affect us as citizens and as people. José F. Sanchez Lawyer >

In the spirit of this section and with the intent that we may know the terms " colloquially " been used without having a clear understanding of what we express with them , it is interesting to know what it is a "slander " and " insult" . It is common to use these two words together (especially in some "more or less serious" television programs), however there are differences between libel and slander, this being a very common question. In a first approximation these terms separately, we can define "slander” as the false accusation of a crime to a person, for example, say that someone is a murderer, thief or crook. However and to be a crime of " Slander " from those contained in Article 205 of the Penal Code, the complaint must be made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, since Article 207 of the CP provides the opportunity to charged with criminal libel, for exemption from punishment, proving the certainty the fact that any criminal defendant. However, the “injury " affects the honour of a person, and is to launch serious statements with knowledge of their falsity, causing dishonour or discredit the subject , injuring the dignity of a person, damaging their reputation or breach their self-esteem . In this sense the injury may involve the attribution of facts or make value judgments about the person, that affect what people might think of her. For example, say publicly that someone cheats on his wife / or with another person... Thus, Article 208 of the Penal Code defines “injury" as the action or expression that harms the dignity of another person, undermining their reputation or attacking their own estimation. A feature common to both legal concepts is that , for the prosecution of both libel and slander , the filing of a complaint by the victim, that is, that are not crimes that are prosecuted ex officio by the prosecution is required , unless directed against public officials , the Authority or its agents. Likewise, it is also common to both the fact that, if the victim gives his “forgiveness”, no conviction shall issue to be the criminal action. And also another common feature for both offences is the existence of "categories" or "differences" in the final sentence with which punished depending on the person against whom it is directed , being treated more harshly the same offence, when is directed against certain persons or members of institutions, as it would be slander or insult any member of the Royal Family , the Government of the Nation, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, or of the Governing Council of an autonomous community, among others . These crimes advertising is an important aspect and the role both the " gossip " as the impact of new technologies deserve separate chapter , for believing covered by so-called " anonymous " are proliferating without much rigor , both allegations crimes such as certain expressions that could be constitutive of these offences. José F. Sanchez Lawyer >

Contrary to popular belief, the legal concept of “accused" does not involve the attribution to the person guilty of the condition, but will be credited only, on an “alleged” commission of facts that may constitute a criminal offence. In this sense, the figure of the "accused" is attributed by law a series of guarantees and rights that are not granted to other participants in the criminal proceedings and they do, for example, that the accused attended at all times by a Lawyer will be present at all proceedings as well as give the opportunity to invoke his right to remain silent (does not have to say anything to the judge), or answer only those questions as appropriate of all put to him and if decides to make a statement , it will not be under oath or affirmation to tell the truth so that , in practice , has the right to lie (has no obligation to tell the truth if he understands that this doesn’t help him ) without therefore commit any other crime. Similarly, we must distinguish between “accused" and “arrested “because not every person who is “accused” has necessarily been arrested by the police on the other hand not all people arrested eventually becomes “accused”. While detention is one of the ways to become charged and certainly the most alarm and striking in a criminal case is not unique, since the complaint also can occur during the preliminary proceedings before the Court Instructional, directly quoting the accused before the court, without having to go through the police station. Another myth that is rigged to the word " accused" is to understand the fact that , x the person who is the subject of an investigation and that is placed in the condition of imputed , must necessarily appear before a court or Court to undergo an oral hearing (commonly identified as trial). And this is not so, as not every detainee is accused, and not every accused is been charged. So, and explain briefly and in general terms, the figure of the accused remains in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, in which the judge investigates whether there are grounds to support an indictment for the existence of facts that may lead to criminal liability: nature, circumstances, persons involved, ultimately it is set to be the subject of prosecution, etc. With the disappearance of these inaccuracies too much confusion or misunderstandings would disappear and, more importantly, the occasional "anger " caused by those difficult to understand judicial decisions on certain judicial proceedings known to all that, once the first stage of complaint to the person, just to stay or dismiss the proceedings, that is, without the defendant becomes "accused " without which, therefore, may be doomed to the possibility of a criminal conviction. On the other hand this situation is as unfair as it is, by the mere fact that the police stop someone on suspicion of having committed an offence , or proceed to testify as a defendant before the judge, and you will automatically consider defendant or even responsible for the crime in question. As with everything in life, a balance has to be maintained. José F. Sanchez Lawyer >