Potrivit art. 275 alin. (1) C.pen., sustragerea, distrugerea, reținerea, ascunderea ori alterarea de mijloace materiale de probă sau de înscrisuri, în scopul de a împiedica aflarea adevărului într-o procedură judiciară, se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la 6 luni la 5 ani. Conform art. 198 alin. (1) C.pr.pen., înscrisurile pot servi ca mijloace de probă, dacă, din conținutul lor, rezultă fapte sau împrejurări de natură să contribuie la aflarea adevărului. (cu notă aprobativă). Infracțiunea de sustragere sau distrugere de probe ori de înscrisuri, prevăzută în art. 275 alin. (1) C.pen., are ca situație premisă existența unei proceduri judiciare începute. În ceea ce privește calitatea de subiect activ, autorul faptei prevăzute de legea penală ce face obiectul procesului penal în care sunt folosite înscrisurile ori mijloacele materiale de probă poate fi subiect activ al infracțiunii de sustragere sau distrugere de probe ori de înscrisuri în modalitatea prevăzută în art. 275 alin. (1) C.pen. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept în materie penală, Decizia nr. 3 din 20 ianuarie 2021 publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 396 din 15 aprilie 2021)

The study provided by the author is devoted to some general approaches on the judicial and procedural systems in some countries in Latin America and in the Caribbean Sea area. The first part of this approach is dedicated to an introduction of the general reforms in the geographical area of reference and to the concerns of the governments in the area regarding the implementation of some reforms intended to make justice more efficient and more accessible to the litigants. The author notes that also in Latin America and in the countries of the Caribbean area the real problems of justice are not essentially different from those on other continents, including from the European area: the postponement of trials, the overcrowding of the courts of law and a modest funding of the judicial system. The political influences on justice in some countries in Latin America and the Caribbean area have led, in this geographical area as well, to a significant decrease of the citizens’ trust in the judicial system. The organization of the judicial systems from the countries of reference offers us a complex legal geography, in relation to the way of organization from the European countries, since in many states in the area the Roman-German law system coexists with that of common law, the latter’s greatest influence being found in the field of public law. The last part of the study presents us some of the most significant approaches at the level of the strictly procedural institutions. And the reforms undertaken in the last three decades in procedural matters cannot ignore the role and influence exerted by the Preliminary Draft Civil Procedure Code for Latin America. That is why the author presented, in a synthetic manner, the principles that were the basis of this important Latin American project and which had a positive impact on some of the regulations contained in the new Civil Procedure Codes adopted in recent years in the specified geographical area. The author’s investigation is not only of doctrinal interest, viewed from the point of view of a comparative research, but also a practical one in an era in which the effervescence of globalization forces us to new reflections on the organization of an efficient, fast justice that leads to prompt enforcement of the judicial decisions. Some of the procedural reforms in Latin America and in the Caribbean area can also be benchmarks for the reforms of justice in other countries, including in the European Union area. And, from among these, the most significant concern undoubtedly the acceleration of trials, the rationalization of the means of appeal, especially the appeal in cassation, the reduction of special procedures and the settlement of some cases, especially of low value, in a single hearing.

In this article, the author aims to analyze the theoretical foundations of two essential principles for the state of law and how to balance the relations between the three powers: the principle of constitutional loyalty and the principle of loyal institutional collaboration between the public authorities vested with the governing powers. The two principles are not formally provided in the text of the Constitution, but can be deduced by way of interpretation from other constitutional principles. As for the first principle, the author shows that it has its source in the obligation freely assumed by each member of a community of individuals organized according to the principles of social hierarchy, or imposed by the public authority with supreme force in the community, to respect a summum of legal norms, whose purpose consists in the regulation and harmonization of the social relations. The origin of the second principle is found in the principle of separation of the three powers in the state, which in the governing process are obliged to collaborate loyally with each other, within the institutional framework prescribed by the constitutional norm. In the end, the author concludes that the substance of the principle of constitutional loyalty includes not only the general obligation of citizens and of both public authorities and institutions to respect the will of the Constituent Legislator formally expressed in the text of the Constitution, but also the obligation of the STATE and of each public authority provided in the Constitution, to be loyal to the CITIZEN. Otherwise, the relations between the state and the citizen are compromised, or will take the form and content of totalitarian-type relations, in which the individual is deprived of rights and absorbed by the state as a dehumanized form of life. The author considers that the loyalty of the state towards the citizen is an obligation of constitutional rank and, on this basis, he proposes, de lege ferenda, its express inclusion in the text of the Constitution at a future revision thereof.