Impact of Procedural Speed on the Right to Defense in the Expedited Procedure

Abstract

Introduction: This article examines the tension between procedural speed and the right to defense in the expedited procedure involving custodial penalties, regulated by Ecuador’s Comprehensive Criminal Code (COIP). The study arises from hearings conducted without the presence of a technical prosecutor or judicial representative, creating procedural imbalance and potential defenselessness. The research asks: to what extent does the application of the expedited procedure affect the right to defense within Ecuador’s criminal procedural system? The objective was to substantiate a normative reform that preserves efficiency without undermining guarantees. Using a qualitative approach with descriptive, explanatory, and propositional scope and a non-experimental cross-sectional design, hermeneutical, exegetical, analytical-synthetic, observational, and comparative law methods were applied. Results show deficiencies in contradiction, immediacy, and technical defense when the institutional accuser is absent. The reform proposal to Article 645 of the COIP mandates the presence of both the technical prosecutor and defense counsel, allows brief postponement for justified absence, and requires reinforced judicial reasoning. Comparative validation (Spain, Argentina, Chile) confirms feasibility under a “rapid justice with guarantees” framework. It concludes that procedural speed is only legitimate within a system ensuring judicial control and full respect for fundamental rights.