358 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 8 / 2016 that at the time of writing has partial implementation of the SPPA, joined. In 2012, Nuevo León comprehensively implemented the SPPA, while Chiapas and Tabasco started partial operation of both the SPPA and the CNPP. In 2013, the states of Puebla, Veracruz, Coahuila and Tamaulipas followed in the other states’footsteps; and in 2014, Querétaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Guerrero, Jalisco, Sinaloa, Aguascalientes, Hidalgo, Campeche, Nayarit, Tlaxcala, and Colima joined. Finally, in 2015, the Federal District and Michoacán started the partial operation of the SPPA and the CNPP, while the state of Baja California Sur was due to put it into effect in 2015, and the SPPA and CNPP were due to come into existence in the state of Sonora in 2016. In summary, at the beginning of 2016, 2 states in the Republic had the SPPA and CNPP operating comprehensively; 4 states had SPPA operating comprehensively and 3 had it operating partially. 21 states had both the SPPA and the CNPP operating partially and 2 states were still due to put into force the SPPA and the CNPP, either partially or comprehensively. As regards the beginning of operation of the Accusatory Penal System at Fede-ral Level, according to the declarations of entry into force that the Congress of the Union releases, on the 24 November 2014, the states of Durango and Puebla began operations; on the 16 March 2015, Yucatán and Zacatecas; and Baja California Sur, Guanajuato, Querétaro and San Luís Potosí were expected to do so on the 1 August. The states of Chiapas, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nayarit, Oaxaca and Tlaxcala were ex-pected to begin operations in November 2015, leaving 18 federal entities to complete the process by mid-2016. In documents published by SETEC, there is a clear concern as regards the planning of the strategic lines of operation of the new system. For the effective planning of these lines, the following elements should be included: creation of an implementing body and a unit for institutional reorganisation; carrying out of an initial appraisal, revision and implementation of the legal framework; study of the institutional situation; development of the strategy for reorganisation; and evaluation of the policies for reorganisation. There are also general criteria for organisational change among the main players in the system (police corporations, attorney generals’offices, public defenders’departments, institutions for alternati-ve criminal dispute settlement mechanisms, expert services institutions, pretrial services, judicial powers – control, oral trial, execution of sentences -, and social reintegration departments). In another document from 2011, SETEC recognises that the gradual implementa-tion of the Criminal Justice System reform should take into account the specific needs of the entities «for the enforcement and administration of criminal justice and, therefore, to allow for the correct administration of the economic and human resources it has». This paper insists on the need for creating a management model that will examine the tasks and responsibilities of organisations and individuals based on the substantive and administrative functions and on the responsibilities of the operators of the justice system. http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee
REVISTA IEEE 8
To see the actual publication please follow the link above