Court finds that according to art

Apossible finding of the unconstitutionality of the criticized legal text. Thus as regards the alleged contradiction of the criticized provisions with the provisions of art. of the Constitution the Court finds that they apply equally to all persons under the legal assumption of the norm. The principle of equality does not mean uniformity so that if in equal situations equal treatment must correspond in different situations the legal treatment can only be different. The violation of the principle of equality and nondiscrimination exists when differential treatment is applied to equal cases without an objective.

And reasonable justification or if there is a Country Email List disproportion between the aim pursued by the unequal treatment and the means used. Formal equality would lead to the same rule despite the difference in situations. Therefore the actual inequality resulting from this difference may justify separate rules depending on the purpose of the law containing them. The Court notes that the criticized legal provisions apply to all defendants under the assumption of the norm. In addition the legal situation in which the defendants arrested in absentia find themselves is not identical to that of the defendants present at the time of preventive arrest because in relation to the.



Latter the deprivation of liberty of the former was ordered in their absence a situation that requires with rigor the subsequent establishment of a special procedure for the execution of such a warrant of preventive arrest issued in the absence of the defendant. In this sense the . para. and of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the measure of preventive arrest was ordered in the absence of the defendant the police body will proceed to arrest the person indicated in the warrant to whom it will hand over a copy of it after which it will leads in no more than hours to the judge who ordered the measure. At the.