The constitutional guarantee of non-self-incrimination: Limits in its application within the abbreviated procedure

Abstract

The constitutional guarantee of the right against self-incrimination, as regulated in Ecuador's Fundamental Charter, stems from a history of injustices and abuses of power within the justice system. Historically, authorities would resort to torture to extract confessions from suspects, presenting these confessions as primary evidence to deliver a culprit to society and demonstrate their apparent efficiency. However, the criminal justice system, due to the accumulation of cases, has implemented the abbreviated procedure in its regulations. While this mechanism reduces procedural burdens and resolves cases more quickly, it simultaneously infringes upon the minimum guarantees recognized for defendants. This study examined the conflict between the prohibition of self-incrimination and the abbreviated procedure, revealing that the application of this mechanism hinders the full exercise of constitutional guarantees. It compromises due process and the human dignity of defendants by directly affecting their right to defense and undermining the presumption of innocence. Consequently, recommendations were made to propose alternatives that allow for coexistence within the legal framework, prioritizing individual well-being while providing legal security to accused persons. At the same time, these alternatives should align with procedural efficiency and economy as regulated by constitutional norms. The goal is to achieve an effective justice system that upholds human rights rather than perpetuating a purely accusatory and traditional system that violates fundamental guarantees and fails to reflect a Constitutional State of Rights and Social Justice.