The 'Arguido' designation. What does it mean to invoke such a status?

[Mr Gray]

I see there's still much confusion regarding the LEGAL STATUS of ARGUIDO.

Every step of a criminal investigation is under the Pubblic Ministry's control - police don't make their cases like in UK or US  and the whole process takes 3/4 steps:

Inquiry
Instruction (optional)
Trial
Sentencing

The Inquiry corresponds to the investigation where, by initiative of the PJ or the suspect/interrogated/witness, you may be attributed or require the ARGUIDO status. Sometimes witness may require that status regarding their potential involvement in other cases/affairs that may rise up during the questionning...

If the ARGUIDO is never charged he never becomes a DEFENDANT (this is already part of a trial, but in PT it's common to call defendants as ARGUIDOS because they maintain the same rights).

In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial..

It looks exactly the same as  in the UK...
investigation..trial...sentence...

Arguido simply means cautioned....so that any statements COULD be used later at  a trial. I would say it is impossible to be charged without being made arguido first.
So..arguido implies no guilt...just suspicion....and would not have to be declared at any job interview..

[Mr Gray]

So how does that work for someone who has had their arguido status removed and then applies for a job at  sometime in the future which requires background checks?    Can they expect to be  described by the authorities as a 'Suspect in an unsolved crime' for the rest of their lives - if the case is never solved?

I think posters on here are getting carried away with the term suspect...as though it implies some guilt...it doesn't.

Al parents of missing children should be considered as suspects as we all now know...so being considered a suspect is no mark on someone's character...it is simply routine

[jassi]

I think posters on here are getting carried away with the term suspect...as though it implies some guilt...it doesn't.

Al parents of missing children should be considered as suspects as we all now know...so being considered a suspect is no mark on someone's character...it is simply routine

At least until you are labelled as 'Prime Suspect' - then you know you are trouble- unless you are dead.

[Mr Gray]

At least until you are labelled as 'Prime Suspect' - then you know you are trouble- unless you are dead.

Do we have any official announcement of prime suspects except by newspapers....

[Carana]

I see there's still much confusion regarding the LEGAL STATUS of ARGUIDO.

Every step of a criminal investigation is under the Pubblic Ministry's control - police don't make their cases like in UK or US  and the whole process takes 3/4 steps:

Inquiry
Instruction (optional)
Trial
Sentencing

The Inquiry corresponds to the investigation where, by initiative of the PJ or the suspect/interrogated/witness, you may be attributed or require the ARGUIDO status. Sometimes witness may require that status regarding their potential involvement in other cases/affairs that may rise up during the questionning...

If the ARGUIDO is never charged he never becomes a DEFENDANT (this is already part of a trial, but in PT it's common to call defendants as ARGUIDOS because they maintain the same rights).

In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial..

That's what I've been trying to explain.

I find "defendant" as a translation for "arguido" prior to trial to be inaccurate and potentially libellous.

The only point I partly disagree with is your last one:

"In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial.."

Of course, arguidos may remain suspects if the inquiry was shelved due to insufficient evidence to charge them. And they would become arguidos again at any point if sufficient new evidence warranted it.

In the McCann case, there was NO evidence of the former arguidos' involvement in the crime (cf the legal summary). The investigation could only be reopened (beyond the 20-day period following the ruling) if new, credible evidence / leads warranted it. The PJ reopened the investigation in October 2013, following their own review of the case that started in May 2011. In this case, the new evidence (and / or valid leads to pursue) is not related to the McCanns' involvement (the PT authorities have already stated that they are not suspects):

"The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects."
DN 25 October 2013
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pj-creates-new-team-to-investigate.html

[Mr Gray]

That's what I've been trying to explain.

I find "defendant" as a translation for "arguido" prior to trial to be inaccurate and potentially libellous.

The only point I partly disagree with is your last one:

"In the same sense if a Case is Archived after Inquiry, because there is not enough evidence to charge, the ARGUIDO status is lifted, but the suspects remain so until they are cleared by a new investigation or a trial.."

Of course, arguidos may remain suspects if the inquiry was shelved due to insufficient evidence to charge them. And they would become arguidos again at any point if sufficient new evidence warranted it.

In the McCann case, there was NO evidence of the former arguidos' involvement in the crime (cf the legal summary). The investigation could only be reopened (beyond the 20-day period following the ruling) if new, credible evidence / leads warranted it. The PJ reopened the investigation in October 2013, following their own review of the case that started in May 2011. In this case, the new evidence (and / or valid leads to pursue) is not related to the McCanns' involvement (the PT authorities have already stated that they are not suspects):

"The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects."
DN 25 October 2013
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pj-creates-new-team-to-investigate.html

Defendant is not the same as arguido...although defendants will have arguido status

[Carana]

Defendant is not the same as arguido...although defendants will have arguido status

Yes, which is why it's not fair to translate arguido (in a pre-trial phase) as defendant.

[Mr Gray]

Yes, which is why it's not fair to translate arguido (in a pre-trial phase) as defendant.

of course it isn't

[John]

Yes, which is why it's not fair to translate arguido (in a pre-trial phase) as defendant.

Defendant is a direct translation for arguido in all the main search engines.  As already pointed out however, a defendant in Portugal had a different meaning to that we in the UK are familiar with.  Portuguese Law has little in common with English Law so attempting to equate terms is futile.

[Carana]

Words often have different meanings according to context within the same language. Search engines aren't equipped for subleties in context.

An example: how would you translate the word "tea" without any information as to context?

The plant? A brew? The term for a meal?

[Alice Purjorick]

Defendant is a direct translation for arguido in all the main search engines.  As already pointed out however, a defendant in Portugal had a different meaning to that we in the UK are familiar with.  Portuguese Law has little in common with English Law so attempting to equate terms is futile.

Especially as there is no direct equivalent in English law. We are then trying to define something which does not exist in this country using legal terms that do.
So which of these applies best under the circumstances:
"There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings". (J Page & R Plant)
or
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand". (B Russell)

Neither insult nor offence is implied or intended.

[Carana]

Especially as there is no direct equivalent in English law. We are then trying to define something which does not exist in this country using legal terms that do.
So which of these applies best under the circumstances:
"There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings". (J Page & R Plant)
or
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand". (B Russell)

Neither insult nor offence is implied or intended.

Both, neither or perhaps one of the two. ;)

[John]

It should always be remembered too that any witness can themselves invoke the arguido status which gives them additional protections and rights.  In such circumstances therefore, they could never be considered a suspect, official or otherwise.

[Benice]

It should always be remembered too that any witness can themselves invoke the arguido status which gives them additional protections and rights.  In such circumstances therefore, they could never be considered a suspect, official or otherwise.

Is Arguido status automatically granted on request or can it be refused?    Just curious.

[Eleanor]

"Arguido Status Designation' would be good.  If you please.