Commentary on Judgment No. 31753 of 2024: Alternative Measures and Their Application
Judgment No. 31753 of July 1, 2024, filed on August 2, 2024, offers an important insight for reflecting on the provisions governing access to alternative measures and conditional release within our criminal justice system. In particular, the Court ruled on the substantive nature of the rules introduced by Decree-Law No. 152 of 1991 and their retroactive application, in light of constitutional jurisprudence.
The Substantive Nature of the Rules
The Court established that the restrictive provisions introduced by Decree-Law of May 13, 1991, No. 152, converted by Law of July 12, 1991, No. 203, are substantive in nature. This implies that such rules cannot be applied retroactively, as established by Article 25, paragraph two, of the Constitution. This principle was further clarified by the Constitutional Court with Judgment No. 32 of 2020, which emphasized the importance of guaranteeing the rights of defendants, even in relation to legislative amendments.
Provisions concerning the execution of custodial sentences and alternative measures - Rules introduced by Decree-Law No. 152 of 1991 - Substantive nature - Consequences - Non-retroactivity - Rules introduced by Decree-Law No. 306 of 1992 - Substantive nature - Exclusion. Regarding access to alternative measures and conditional release, the restrictive provisions introduced by Decree-Law of May 13, 1991, No. 152, converted, with amendments, by Law of July 12, 1991, No. 203, are substantive in nature. Therefore, in light of the interpretation of Article 25, paragraph two, of the Constitution adopted by the Constitutional Court with Judgment No. 32 of 2020, they cannot be applied retroactively. Conversely, the provisions introduced by Article 15 of Decree-Law of June 8, 1992, No. 306, converted, with amendments, by Law of August 7, 1992, No. 356, which only affected the operational modalities of the institutions, do not have a similar nature.
Practical Consequences of the Judgment
This judgment has significant practical implications for the application of alternative measures. In particular, it reiterates that changes to the conditions for accessing these measures cannot retroactively penalize already convicted individuals. The consequences of this jurisprudential interpretation can be summarized in the following points:
- Guarantee of defendants' rights in compliance with the principles of legality and non-retroactivity.
- Clarity in distinguishing between substantive and procedural rules, avoiding interpretive confusion.
- Possibility of reviewing the application of alternative measures based on the new normative interpretation.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 31753 of 2024 represents an important milestone in the legal debate concerning alternative measures to detention. It underscores the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and provides a clear framework for the application of rules, preventing legislative changes from negatively impacting already established situations. It is crucial for jurists and legal practitioners to adhere to these principles to ensure a fair and just application of criminal laws within our legal system.
