The presumption of innocence, compared to the precautionary measure of preventive detention in Ecuador

Abstract

The presumption of innocence, established in the Constitution, protects people from wrongful convictions by considering them innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, preventive detention, regulated by the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP), is a precautionary measure designed to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial, but its inappropriate use can violate this principle, becoming an anticipated sentence. The study seeks to analyze how these principles impact human rights and proposes recommendations to improve equity in criminal proceedings. It highlights the importance of preventive detention being an exceptional measure, used only when there are no less burdensome alternatives, such as electronic monitoring. The excessive use of preventive detention has generated criticism for compromising the life of the accused and sowing distrust in the judicial system. The research suggests the need for legislative reforms that strengthen the protection of human rights and promote alternatives to preventive detention. Through a methodological approach that combines documentary review, case analysis and interviews with experts, the aim is to offer a comprehensive vision of the application of preventive detention and its impact on the presumption of innocence. Ultimately, the investigation seeks to balance both principles to ensure fair criminal processes that respect fundamental rights.