http://translate.google.com/transla...-der-sloot-ir%C3%A9-hasta-la-cidh&sl=es&tl=en
The two most interesting things in this article are the following, IMO.
MA: Habeas corpus means to return the body. Court applies that when it has violated the right person gets the resource,
causing all return to the stage at the beginning of the violation of this right.
MA: It is a fundamental issue to achieve,
because in this second statement he will say things as they have happened.
Joran wants a 'do-over'. He wants to keep trying out different scenarios - just like he did with Natalee - hoping something will stick.
He's not dealing with dirty Aruban cops or family to cover his tracks this time. I don't think the Peruvians are going to play his games.
HC, of course, is an old latin term that literally means "You have the body," and figuratively means "bring the [body of] this person to court". An attorney petitions the court/judge to issue the writ of HC (which the court may or may not do). An issued writ directs LE to bring the person to court for a hearing. A judge will only issue the writ if the petition alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to "relief." If they don't, the petition will be dismissed without the writ of HC ever being issued.
If the writ is issued, a hearing is held. If the defendant prevails, he'll get only the relief he is entitled to, which may or may not be release.
For example, here in the U.S., you could prove your HC facts, but it may be that the only relief you are entitled to on those facts is that you get a new punishment hearing (the guilty verdict stands). So it depends on what the violation of rights were to begin with.
Again, even if the trial court threw out the confession because the process of getting it out of him was improper (violated some fundamental right), the "State" still has enough evidence that the Judge will let the charge stand. He doesn't get to "return" to the street to flee, be re-captured, etc. He would only be released if ALL LE had was a confession. When that's pretty much all LE has, and that goes away, then LE/prosecutor does not have "probable cause" to detain someone.
As we all know, here, defendants have a right to remain silent (which can be waived), a right to counsel, right to terminate questioning... LE cannot use threats to get a statement (otherwise it is "involuntary"), but they can state the law, charges, potential sentence, etc. and can promise to be more lenient or "help" you if you cooperate. If any of his rights during this process were violated, it can be thrown out.
And, if that happens, JVS can tell his "new" facts all day long and the Prosecutor doesn't have to use that statement at trial. The prosecutor can put it in the shredder if he wants, which is probably where any "new" statement by JVS would belong :winko:
