Análisis del segundo requisito de la legítima defensa sobre la racionalidad del medio empleado para defenderse, dentro del proceso No. 01658-2019-00547

Abstract

This thesis examines the second requirement of self-defense: the rational necessity of the means employed, within the context of case No. 01658-2019-00547 in Ecuador. It delves into the concept of self-defense, from its philosophical foundations to its regulation in the Comprehensive Organic Penal Code (COIP), emphasizing the significance of this fundamental right within the Ecuadorian penal system. The analysis focuses on a specific homicide case where both the Tribunal de Garantías Penales (Criminal Guarantees Court) and the Sala Especializada de lo Penal (Specialized Criminal Chamber) issued divergent decisions regarding the application of self-defense. The Tribunal acknowledged that the accused acted in self-defense after being assaulted, but deemed the use of a knife as excessive, applying the concept of “excessive self-defense” and reducing the sentence, conversely, the Sala Especializada did not recognize self-defense, arguing that the means employed were disproportionate and questioning the credibility of the accused’s version. This discrepancy in the interpretation and application of the law underscores the complexity and challenges faced by the Ecuadorian judicial system in this domain. The study scrutinizes the arguments presented by both judicial bodies, comparing them with relevant doctrine and jurisprudence. It concludes that the Sala Especializada conducted a more rigorous analysis of the evidence, applying the law more strictly and safeguarding the victim’s rights. However, questions arise regarding whether the Sala adequately considered the accused’s perception and the imminent danger when assessing the rationality of the means employed.