El objeto del presente texto es estudiar de qué manera reconoce el Sistema de Justicia Penal Acusatorio a los Derechos Humanos. El proceso penal advierte una nueva visión de justicia penal en relación con el papel que ejerce el órgano acusador, el Ministerio Público cuenta con atribuciones de persecución del delito y ejercicio de la acción penal encaminadas a garantizar la seguridad jurídica del proceso. Con relación a las partes del proceso, encontramos un modelo de justicia más respetuoso de las garantías procesales; asimismo, se constata de manera muy positiva que el diseño determinado para el proceso se ve revestido por los derechos de presunción de inocencia y dignidad humana. Si bien, aunque fue aprobado un sistema garantista, a contrario sensu en el proceso penal existen limitaciones constitucionales en materia de DH, se trata de la pugna que existe entre derechos individuales frente a la expresión del interés de la comunidad, en este caso, la seguridad pública. El legislador constituyente diseñó el subsistema de derechos fundamentales y sus límites, al igual que lo hizo el legislador ordinario con la Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada.

Comparative Law for Spanish–English Speaking Lawyers provides practitioners and students of law, in a variety of English- and Spanish- speaking countries, with the information and skills needed to successfully undertake competent comparative legal research and communicate with local counsel and clients in a second language. Written with the purpose of helping lawyers develop the practical skills essential for success in today’s increasingly international legal market, this book aims to arm its readers with the tools needed to translate unfamiliar legal terms and contextualize the legal concepts and practices used in foreign legal systems. Comparative Law for Spanish–English Speaking Lawyers / Derecho comparado para abogados anglo- e hispanoparlantes, escrita en inglés y español, persigue potenciar las habilidades lingüísticas y los conocimientos de derecho comparado de sus lectores. Con este propósito, términos y conceptos jurídicos esenciales son explicados al hilo del análisis riguroso y transversal de selectas jurisdicciones hispano- y angloparlantes. El libro pretende con ello que abogados, estudiantes de derecho y traductores puedan trabajar en una segunda lengua con solvencia y consciencia de las diferencias jurídicas y culturales que afectan a las relaciones con abogados y clientes extranjeros. La obra se complementa con ejercicios individuales y en grupo que permiten a los lectores reflexionar sobre estas divergencias.

"Since the Mexican government escalated its war on organized crime at the end of 2006, over 150,000 Mexicans have been intentionally murdered. Countless thousands of others have been tortured; no one knows how many have disappeared. Caught between government forces and organized crime cartels, the Mexican people have suffered as atrocities and impunity reign. Based on three years of research, over 100 interviews, and previously unreleased government documents, this report finds a reasonable basis to believe that government forces and members of criminal cartels have perpetrated crimes against humanity in Mexico. The report comprehensively examines why there has been so little justice for atrocity crimes, and finds the main answers in political obstruction. Given the lack of political will to end impunity, new approaches must be taken. The report argues for a series of institutional changes, most importantly the creation of an internationalized investigative body, based inside Mexico, with powers to independently investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes."--Page 4 of cover.

This report considers the biological and behavioral mechanisms that may underlie the pathogenicity of tobacco smoke. Many Surgeon General's reports have considered research findings on mechanisms in assessing the biological plausibility of associations observed in epidemiologic studies. Mechanisms of disease are important because they may provide plausibility, which is one of the guideline criteria for assessing evidence on causation. This report specifically reviews the evidence on the potential mechanisms by which smoking causes diseases and considers whether a mechanism is likely to be operative in the production of human disease by tobacco smoke. This evidence is relevant to understanding how smoking causes disease, to identifying those who may be particularly susceptible, and to assessing the potential risks of tobacco products.

A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.