This research is justified to make Pontes de Miranda's contributions to criminal procedure accessible, as they are often obscured by technological and editorial barriers. The central problem is formulated as follows: why do Pontes de Miranda's ideas on criminal procedure, despite being current and relevant, remain little known among criminal proceduralists? The hypothesis is that this invisibility stems not from theoretical obsolescence, but from a lack of digital accessibility and the predominance of foreign references in doctrine. The objective is to critically analyze Pontes de Miranda's main concepts on criminal procedure, such as the nature of criminal action, the distinction between inquisitorial and accusatory systems, the defense of habeas corpus and equality of arms, relating them to democratic values and contemporary debates. The method of approach adopted is hypothetical-deductive, using a bibliographic review, with a rereading of Pontes de Miranda's central works, in addition to a comparison with authors such as Carnelutti, Liebman, Aury Lopes Jr., and Jacinto Coutinho. It is concluded that Pontes de Miranda anticipates discussions, revealing commitment to fundamental guarantees and the containment of punitive power, so that his rediscovery is essential to strengthen a democratic criminal process.

This contribution focuses on critical issues and the potential for expanding the use of simplified criminal proceedings by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Beginning with a comparative review of the Office's practices in four Member States (Italy, Spain, France, and Germany), it identifies problematic aspects that could hinder the Office’s wider use of the European negotiating mechanism. Given the gradual increase of the Office’s caseload, the article presents arguments for more flexible use of this instrument in the field of economic crime. The goal is to establish the groundwork for maximizing the potential of simplified procedures while maintaining the proper balance between efficiency and the competing values that drive European criminal justice.

The editorial analyses the different models of negotiated justice from a methodological perspective. It investigates the notion of negotiated justice, in relation to the mechanisms provided for under such label in different legal systems and critically examines the impact of similar models on procedural safeguards.

This article considers how courts supervise negotiated agreements in criminal proceedings, looking at five different jurisdictions: the United States, England and Wales, France, Germany, and Poland. Although every system makes use of such agreements, they have developed in very different ways and the role assigned to the trial judge is far from uniform. What appears as a common minimum is the duty to check that the plea is voluntary and lawful, yet the depth of this review varies greatly. In some countries the judge’s role is reduced almost to a formality, while in others it is linked directly to the search for truth and the proportionality of the sentence. The paper also points to the relationship between the first-instance court’s control and the scope of appellate review, as well as to the risks that follow when judicial oversight gives way to prosecutorial dominance. The overall conclusion is that the more frequently consensual mechanisms are used, the more important it becomes to keep the court in its role as a genuine safeguard of fairness rather than a mere approver of bargains.

The study aims to analyze data related to legal proceedings in family courts in which the plaintiff presents a request for protective measures in a court with jurisdiction over domestic violence, in order to identify markers of revictimization. We also seek to understand whether the failure to implement the hybrid jurisdiction provided for in the LMP is affecting the guarantee of access to justice. The research is qualitative and uses content analysis of data relating to lawsuits in family courts filed by women who had protective measures. We set out from the premise that the fragmentation of judicial services in cases of domestic violence can lead to the revictimization of women in family courts. Due to the lack of broad jurisdiction in judicial units that deal with domestic and family violence, women are led to access the judiciary more than once and, as a result, are susceptible to the disregard of domestic violence and/or non-specialized treatment of claims arising from such violence in family courts. In addition to verifying the existence of evidence of revictimization in the cases analyzed, the study enables reflection on some of the effects resulting from the absence of hybrid jurisdiction in judicial units that deal with cases of domestic and family violence.

The performance of the Brazilian Federal Prosecution Service (MPF), responsible for upholding the legal order and public interests, in capital market fraud has been marked by significant gaps and challenges. In this context, this article examines the MPF’s enforcement agenda and the role of criminal enforcement in capital markets. To achieve this, a documentary analysis methodology was employed, reviewing 2,820 documents, including public examination notices, exams, reports, supporting materials, and training events. The findings reveal that, since 2013, the MPF’s institutional priority has been combating corruption—especially after Operation Car Wash—at the expense of other areas, including capital market enforcement, which has been largely absent from prosecutor exams, appearing only marginally in the 30th examination in 2022. Given this scenario, the study calls for a critical reflection on the need for a more balanced and strategic approach by the MPF, advocating for the creation of specialized units and enhanced training for its members to tackle the complex challenges of contemporary financial crimes.

This article analyzes the case of a Venezuelan woman who, in a context of sexual exploitation, was coerced by her traffickers into smuggling weapons between two regions in northern Chile. Using a qualitative methodology with an intersectional approach, we explore the factors that contributed to her dual victimization—both through sexual exploitation and her instrumentalization in arms trafficking—and examine the response of the Chilean criminal justice system to the case. Based on this analysis, we conclude that various forms of exploitation (mixed forms of exploitation) overlap in northern Chile and that the criminal justice system exhibits significant deficiencies in the timely identification of human trafficking victims. These shortcomings contribute to victims’ revictimization and hinder their access to justice. This exploratory study highlights the need to adopt an intersectional and differentiated approach in the prosecution of crimes related to organized crime, ensuring the protection of victims of all forms of human trafficking.

This article attempts to analyse the statute of limitations – a common institution in continental criminal laws – within the framework of the dynamics between public and individual interests in the criminal justice systems. With the Polish legal system as a benchmark and a comparative look at selected other jurisdictions, this article presents the discussions on justifications and legal character of the statute of limitations, trying to define its role within the criminal law and process, given its ability to extinguish criminal liability and prosecution’s powers. This paper aims to present the statute of limitations as a polyphonic institution, with various motives behind its existence and different manners in which it influences the criminal proceedings, arguing that it is the search of a middle ground between the public and individual interest, as well as between failure to adjudicate and eternal prosecutions (both viewed as unjust), that shapes the statute of limitations in contemporary criminal law.

The current Colombian legal system, as established by the 1991 Political Constitution, recognizes legal pluralism as an anti-formalist strategy of social vindication aimed at addressing everyday demands. In this context, both the Indigenous jurisdiction and the ordinary criminal jurisdiction legally coexist, a situation that has sparked extensive debates regarding the criteria for determining the competence of each jurisdiction. This article seeks to answer the following research question: What legal criteria should guide the construction of a hermeneutic framework that enables the coexistence of ordinary and Indigenous jurisdictions in accordance with the current constitutional provisions in Colombia? To this end, the study delimits the aforementioned coexistence from a theoretical-legal perspective in order to develop interpretive criteria that allow for the determination of jurisdictional competence in specific cases. The research adopts a critical hermeneutic approach, grounded in qualitative methods of analysis.

This article discusses the personal search under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP), a precautionary evidentiary measure that is carried out by the police authority on the individual, including the possibility of inspecting their body and clothing, as well as the belongings in their possession. The paper that follows aims to analyze the legality measure adopted by the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Paraná, Brasil (TJPR) in its decisions regarding the carrying out of personal searches without the need for a court warrant, based on the “well-founded suspicion” of possession of a prohibited weapon or object that constitutes a crime. To achieve this objective and bibliographical research was carried out, conducted through case law research, together with consultations of criminal and procedural legislation, as well as legal manuals. This time, the aim was to verify whether the responses given by the TJPR are in accordance with the requirements of the constitutional and the infra-constitutional text of 240 and 244 of de CPP and to what extent the TJPR assimilated, applied, or eventually distanced itself from the guidelines introduced by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). Finally, the research suggests that the Judiciary adopt a binding interpretation on the matter, based on Habeas Corpus Appeal No. 158.580 of the STJ, a relevant understanding on the subject.