Author(s) Vânia Andrea Oliveira Gomes
Advisor(s) Maria Clara Calheiros and Pedro Barbas Albuquerque
Year 2016

Synopsis The need of the STJ (29 October 2008) to fix jurisprudence caused by a divergence amongst court rulings, translates in the importance given to article 328 nº 6 of the CPP. The interpretation given to that article provides that if the trial hearing can’t be resumed within thirty days it loses the effectiveness of evidence already produced orally. This loss occurs regardless of the existence of the documentation referred in the article 363 of the same legal diploma. The appropriate means to the recording of the trial hearing entered into force by Decree-Law no.39/95, of 15 February. This decree meant that the courts had the technical means of recording a cassette in order to ensure the full reproduction of the declarations made orally in audience. However, only in 2007 by Law No48/2007 of 29 August, we see real progress of the process started in the mid- 1990s. Now it is enforced that the documentation of oral statements provided in audience is always mandatory, under penalty of nullity. Nevertheless, the CPP continued predicting the preclusion of it if the hearing postponement exceeds thirty days. The principle of immediacy called upon the court ruling implies the disallowance of the audience to exceed the thirty days without the proof losing all its value. According to the judgement, thirty days are the maximum limit to keep alive the perceptions withdrawn from the trial inherent to the magistrate.. Psychology has shown us that human memory is influenced by unlimited facts that cause prejudice to the ability of recalling past events.

See more here.