Advanced Search

AMEND ARTICLE 8 ° OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND ARTICLE 66 OF LAW N ° 16,618, WHICH LAYS DOWN THE TEXT OF THE LAW OF MINORS

Original Language Title: MODIFICA ARTICULO 8° DEL CODIGO DE PROCEDIMIENTO PENAL Y ARTICULO 66 DE LA LEY N° 16.618, QUE FIJA TEXTO DE LA LEY DE MENORES

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE PENAL CODE OF PROCEDURE AND ARTICLE 66 OF LAW N ° 16,618, WHICH SETS OUT THE TEXT OF THE LAW OF MINORS Having regard to the fact that the National Congress has given its approval to the following: Draft Law: " Article 1. Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following point: The judges of the crime who are aware of one of the offences listed in Articles 346 to 372 of the Penal Code, in which a minor is a victim, must put the fact to the attention of the (a) a judge of a competent minor, in order to enable him to issue, if appropriate, any measure of protection in his ". Article 2-Intercalase in Article 66 of Law No. 16,618, which establishes the definitive text of the Law of Minors, the following point first, passing the current ones to be second and third, respectively: " Article 66. acts constituting the abuse of minors who in accordance with the general rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure are obliged to do so; the same obligation and penalties will affect the teachers and other persons in charge of the ".". ". Having complied with the provisions of Article 82 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic, I have had to approve it and sanction it; therefore, it should be enacted and implemented as a law of the Republic. Santiago, 20 April 1994.-EDUARDO FREI RUIZ-TAGLE, President of the Republic.-Maria Soledad Alvear Valenzuela, Minister of Justice. What I transcribe to Ud., for his knowledge.-Eduardo Jara Miranda, Assistant Secretary of Justice. The Secretary of the Constitutional Court, who subscribes, certifies that the Honorable Senate has sent the bill enunciated in the rubric, approved by the National Congress, to end The Court held that the Court held that the Court exercised its constitutionality and that, by judgment of 1 March 1994, it declared: 1. The rules contained in the N ° s. 1 and 2 of Article 2 of the draft submitted are unconstitutional and must be deleted from the text. 2. That it is not for the Court to rule on Articles 1 and 2, No. 3 of the draft, for dealing with matters which are not themselves of constitutional organic law. Rafael Larraín Cruz, Secretary.-Santiago, March 2, 1994.