The Chilean half-statute of limitations and the Spanish analogous mitigating circumstance of quasi-limitation: A “minimal” proposal for its better interpretation and application

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to critically address partial statutes of limitations. This refers to the mitigating effect of criminal punishment when a significant amount of time has elapsed between the commission of a crime and the imposition of the sentence, but the period required for the statute of limitations to expire has not yet been met. The method used is the exposition of two distinct models to convey the principle of partial statute of limitations: one of a legal nature—the half-statute of limitations in Chilean law—and another rooted in jurisprudence—the quasi-statute of limitations in Spanish law. The analysis of both models reveals the alarmingly unequal application of mitigating effects to identical factual situations. It is concluded that the practical application of this beneficial rule has entailed severe violations of the principle of equality before the law, also compromising the principle of legal certainty. As a proposal, a series of fundamental criteria or rules are presented that constitute the minimum standard necessary to guarantee the configuration of a partial statutes of limitations model, both in a legal system and in a jurisprudential one, that is compatible with the criminal law of a social and democratic State of Law.