Abstract
This article aims to show that the Criminal Investigative Procedure – PIC, because it is its own and internal administrative procedure within the public prosecutor's office, will not be subject to systematic judicial control, as an indispensable condition of its legal validity, except when there are acts that require analysis and intervention of the judiciary (precautionary measures, temporary and preventive arrests, search and seizure, bouts of bank secrecy, tax secrecy and telephone communications, etc.). In addition to the constitutional guarantees credited to the Public Prosecutor's Office, they serve as the basis for the analysis of the discussed here, among other institutes, CNMP Resolution No. 181/17 (with the amendments brought by Resolution No. 183/18), in which the rules to be followed internally for the establishment, instruction and conclusion of the aforementioned procedure remain specified.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
