The affected parties in domain forfeiture processes may require compensation based on the material damage that may have caused the adoption of precautionary measures on the property.
This is contained in paragraph II, of article 55, of the domain extinction law approved by the Senate of the Republic and promulgated by President Luis Abinader through an act in the National Palace.
The aforementioned article on seizure of the court and fixing of hearing, establishes that once the request for domain extinction is prepared, in the terms provided in this law, it must be deposited before the competent court.
Adduces paragraph I, that, verified the requirements and formalities required in the application, the court will proceed to issue an order within a period not exceeding five business days, by means of which it will set a hearing and authorize the notification to the affected party.
While article 56, on the defense brief, maintains that the affected party will have a period of 20 days from the notification to present a defense brief in response to the request for domain extinction presented by the public ministry.
Paragraph I establishes in the defense brief that the trial offer indicating the claim of each of the means of evidence provided, as well as the indication of the means whose production requires a judicial decision and that have not been produced through judicial assistance prior to the patrimonial investigation stage.
Paragraph II establishes that it may be required compensation based on material damage that may have caused the adoption of precautionary measures on the assets.
While article 57, of the aforementioned law, on notification to witnesses and experts, that once the defense brief has been presented or the term for its presentation has expired, the competent court will proceed to summon the witnesses and experts that have been offered as evidence. to appear at the hearing.
Of the domain forfeiture judgment
Article 58 establishes, regarding the hearing, that the domain forfeiture trial will be heard in public audienceoral and contradictory.
Paragraph I of the aforementioned article establishes that the affected party subject to a domain forfeiture trial may appear through his legal representative.
While paragraph II establishes that, in any case, the non-appearance of the affected party or his legal representative, when they were validly summoned, will not stop the knowledge of the hearingunless there is a justified cause of force majeure.
Paragraph III establishes that, if the public prosecutor does not appear or withdraws from the hearing, the court must notify the head or hierarchical superior, instructing him to immediately appoint a representative in his place, warning that, if neither replaces it, the action will be deemed withdrawn.
Witnesses or experts, according to paragraph IV, who do not attend the hearing, despite being duly summoned and not having presented valid justification, may be forced to appear by applying the rules of conduct provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Paragraph V establishes that in cases where it is necessary to suspend the hearing debate, this will only be possible for a period not exceeding business days.
While article 59 of the aforementioned law establishes, on the phases of the debatethat the hearing will be organized in a first phase, in which the composition of the court and the legitimacy of the parties will be verified, the exceptions and incidental questions raised will be resolved and the admissibility of the evidence presented will be determined.
While, in a second phasethe parties will expose the initial arguments, the evidence will be presented and practiced, and the final arguments will be presented, while paragraph I of the aforementioned article establishes that the exceptions and incidental questions may be accumulated to be ruled jointly with the merits.
In any case, says paragraph II, the decision that rejects exceptions and incidental issues may only be appealed together with the judgment that intervenes as a substantive decision of the process.
Article 60 of the aforementioned law, on reading and notification of sentence, establishes that Once the debates are over, the court will declare the hearing closed and will summon the parties to read the sentence.which must occur within a period not exceeding five working days, extendable for another 5 working days when the complexity of the case warrants it.
Paragraph I of that article establishes that the sentence will be considered notified, for all parties duly convened, with the reading of the operative part, while paragraph II establishes that if they are present they will receive a copy of the ruling.
On its side, article 61, on supplementary rules, establishes that the hearing established in the Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied in a supplementary manner, adopted to the nature of the domain forfeiture trial.