Legal implications of the repeal of the inadmissibility of early conclusion in the protection of fundamental rights

Abstract

The repeal of the inadmissibility of early conclusion has created a significant context of uncertainty regarding the protection of fundamental rights within judicial proceedings. This study aims to analyze these implications, considering the importance of safeguarding fundamental guarantees such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a defense. The research was conducted as a systematic review article applying the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), evaluating various perspectives on how this repeal may compromise procedural guarantees for defendants and exacerbate inequalities in access to justice. The findings indicate that, although the repeal seeks to expedite judicial procedures, it poses a risk to fundamental liberties by weakening the effectiveness of the defense and increasing the likelihood of sanctions prior to the fulfillment of due process. In conclusion, this work emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that ensures procedural speed without sacrificing human rights, suggesting that future interventions should focus on developing regulatory frameworks that strengthen judicial guarantees in accelerated contexts. The study invites reflection on how legal reforms can be implemented without undermining justice or the rights of the individuals involved