THE ALTERNATIVE ACCUSATION AS A GUARANTEE OF DEFENSE

Abstract

The alternative accusation is usually presented as an interactive procedural institute of the constitutional guarantee of defense in court. Without prejudice to this, it does not seem prudent that the facts are imputed alternatively, at a time when the owners of the action lack certain knowledge about what – in principle – the criminalconduct could have been, using the subsidiary accusation as a kind of last ratio before investigations with flimsy evidence. If the alternative accusation is used respecting the constitutional parameters of the defense in trial and the compatibility with the principle of congruence, it allows the accused to exercise his defense more broadly and provide evidence in this regard. Otherwise, if it is monopolized as a corrector of investigative deficiencies, the guarantee in question would not be respected, nor would the principles of objectivity and impartiality of an accusatory procedural system.