A prova por reconhecimento num processo penal de estrutura acusatória

• Autor(a) principal: Almeida, Fábio
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/20130
• topic: Direito

This thesis studies two main subjects: the “act” of identification (its meanings and dimensions) and the Portuguese criminal eyewitness identification procedure. The first subject of this investigation has an auxiliary function to fully understand the meaning of the second subject. Its aim is to provide and collect information about the meaning of the identification act (on three perspectives: scope/object, psychological and structural). This information will provide the grounds of the critical assessment of the Portuguese eyewitness identification system. The second subject is focused on the Portuguese eyewitness identification procedure. The study begins with a brief historic and comparative analysis about sources and identification “types”. Their results will help to assess the eyewitness identification rules in force. The assessment of these rules begins with the study of the identification’s requirements and participants. In these subjects, a special attention is given to the normative requirements of the eyewitness procedure (particularly about the nature of this evidence and his relation with other evidence) and to his participants (public authority, “eyewitness”, “subject”, distractors). It is then studied the structure of the eyewitness identification procedure. It is a two phase procedure. The first phase is mandatory and has a narrative-descriptive nature. The second phase has recognition nature and is subsidiary (non-mandatory). This investigation focus on the scope and extension of legal interrogation established on the first phase and on the second’s phase legal requirements (about the identification procedural scenario), particularly regarding the interpretation and practical issues on both subjects. The investigation ends with eyewitness identification documentation model (its improperness to accomplish its aims on systems where eyewitness identification is collected and obtained in the preliminary stages) as well as remedial and exclusion rule established on the identification rules. This rule has a particular meaning in our criminal system, which is to forbid the substitution of the eyewitness identification procedure by other forms, dock identifications, confrontations, suggestive identifications and lineup identifications with non-resemblence fillers.