“Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.” This expression, well known to most of society, has a real basis in Justice that must be extrapolated to all domains of administrations and public powers.
In our country, the principle of the presumption of innocence also applies, that is, it is the accusing party who has to prove the commission of the alleged criminal offense, but through the so-called “sanctifying administrative procedure” and on the basis of a series of acts regulated by our law, the public administration can exercise its sanctioning powers.
Like the imposition of penalties by the criminal jurisdiction, sanctioning power is another expression of the state’s right to punish (ius puniendi), as Lucía Gálvez, a lawyer at Pyramid Consulting, explains to this newspaper.
According to Gálvez, “in terms of traffic and road safety, it would be no exception. The Traffic Act and the General Traffic Regulations regulate a range of permitted and prohibited behaviors while driving. And all drivers can be ‘caught’ committing a possible violation.
Therefore, we often feel that if we receive the fine at home, we can do nothing but pay it and hope not to receive another one soon. However, the administration “must show that the sanctioned driver committed the offense and must use evidence for this.”
Lucía Gálvez explains that this evidence must of course be provided by the administration and is subject to what is legally known as the “principle of contradiction”, i.e. everyone must have the opportunity to express their point of view and to present the relevant evidence. to ask. arguments, as laid down in Article 75.4 of WET 39/2015, which stipulates that; “The investigating body shall take the necessary measures to ensure full respect for the principles of contradiction and equality of the interested parties in the proceedings”, evidence to be provided to the interested party during the handling of the administrative procedure.
It all depends on the type of sanction and the reporting mode we are in. For example, in cases where an agent in charge of traffic enforcement stops our vehicle because we are using a mobile device while driving, first will file a complaint bulletin by hand with mention of article 18 of the General Regulations of the Issuance as the rule that has been violated.
“We always have to ask for the testimony and endorsement from the agent. At that point, the complaint will be considered filed and we will have 20 days to file a counter-notice asking for the evidence to defend our sanction. The main test will be on the testimony and corroboration of the agent who must give a brief description of the facts that indicate that he actually remembers what could have happened to prove the offense«.
This test must be carried out at the request of the defendant, otherwise, if its practice is not denied with reasons, it would violate the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Another assumption that we can find is receiving a notification of a complaint at our home from that radar that we have not seen nor been spotted before.
In this case, Lucía Gálvez understands that “the DGT will send us a photo that clearly shows the registration plate of our vehicle and a radar certificate (in particular a certificate of periodic verification of the cinemometer). So we can think that everything is correct and that the administration has already sent us the evidence; however, we believe that the evidence submitted is insufficient and incomplete. The law requires two photos at different times»
As he clarifies, it is required by law to take two frames of the offending vehicle at different times. one will show a panoramic view of the vehicle and another the identification plate, so “if they just send us a frame and the second is an enlargement of the first, the correct proof wouldn’t be sent”.
He also adds that the certification of the radar is often incorrect, as is the certificate of the cinemometer and its calibration. The person who handled it may not be qualified to do so and may cause an error in recording the reading.
Practicing tests is also necessary and fundamental in light penalties, such as parking. With these sanctions, it is very easy to verify this on the basis of a simple photo of the parked vehicle indicating the day, time and place it was taken and from which the offending behavior was clearly inferred, and the certificate of verification of the operation of the camera or the technical element with which the recording was made.
In all these cases “requesting evidence from the competent administration during the pleading phase indicating the commission of the criminal offense is not only a citizen’s right, but it is also an obligation of the government to send it to comply with the rule.” of law and constitutional rights,” he clarifies.
Source: La Verdad
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
