Introduction

In criminal matters, it is very important to make clear who or who are the people who have broken the criminal law, and obviously you must set the level of participation that these people have.

From the above it is essential to have a Theory of Crime, which we illustrate for establishing the parameters that distinguish those who do the crime, working together, etc.

Our Penal Code provides in Article 32, who are criminally responsible, these are:

* A) The authors may be direct or may be consequential.

* B) The instigators and

* C) The accomplices.

To distinguish between authors and participants, there are several theories:

Formal Theory Objective: The author is the one who performs the action expressed by the verb typical, this theory falls short because it only recognizes an author.

Subjective Theory: Part of that from an objective point of view can not distinguish between an author of the participants, they all get equal conditions for the production of the result. It goes to the subjective aspect, investigating the spirit in which the subject appeared (special type of fraud):

* The author is acting with the intent auctoris (will be).

* The participant is acting with the intent Socci (only help).

The latest theory is the Theory of the Dominion of Fact, which states that has mastered the fact that really sets it up and know you have the real settings in their hands. The author sets the fact is he who rules his own typical action or will of another to perform that action typical. Therefore, with the domain of fact:

* Author immediate or direct: total domination of the action itself.

* Author Mediate, dominating the will of another.

* Coauthor: functional domain.

Author Direct. (Article 33 Penal Code)

Direct perpetrators (or immediate), are in their acts together all elements of the crime

These authors may direct:

* At implementation, making personal and active part in the crime.

* By cooperation, help the offense knowing.

* For coercion, help constrained by moral or physical violence to commit a crime.

The action of the author covers both previous and contemporaneous conduct (situations that coincide in time and age) if these first and notebooks are causally linked with the final result is produced.

The author directly, is also called Immediate author: This applies whether the crime is done by one person or in collusion with others.

Dr. Manuel Arrieta Gallegos authors define direct or immediate way: “are those who directly carried out the crime, is already with his action or omission”

But then, Who are the sponsors

In the co-authors combine different actions for different subjects arranged so that each part of the total fact.

The most important problem is to distinguish the plurality of members who are perpetrators and those without the condition. This can be analyzed by several factors:

The existence of a prior agreement for the conduct of conduct, with distribution of roles among the participants.

The foregoing that accompanies the commission of acts of sufficient importance to produce the result, ie to help the consummation of the offense.

Must be proficient in fact, understood not as the particular domain and isolated from the action the subject performs, but the co-authors jointly dominate the common shares and directed toward the fulfillment of the offense.

It is also important to know a little about the authorship and ownership Intellectual Material:

* Mastermind, is one who plans, designs the offense studying every detail of actions to take for the commission of the offense takes place. The figure of the intellectual author somehow fits together with that of the instigator (Article 35 Penal Code), the instigator instigator shares with some similarities and it is he who determines to another intentionally commit an intentional unlawful act.

This form of action is psychically influence another to resolve and make typical act without being previously had been determined to run.

* The perpetrators of the crime is one who physically carried the offense, or that or those which jointly carried out the crime.Mastermind

The mastermind “is one that only uses another as an instrument for carrying out the crime.”

This is the case in which the subject, dominating the event and having all the special features of authorship, other uses for the implementation of the typical action. There is a subordination of the instrument to mastermind.

Here, we can distinguish several cases:

* An instrument that work without malice, because he suffers from a type error. If the error is invincible, no doubt (with impunity), on the contrary, if the error is beatable would be a reckless immediate author (authorship accessory: no agreement among the participants, even tacit).

* An instrument that work according to law.

* An instrument that work coerced. The intent is creating coercing another. There is a sector of the doctrine that says that the subject who is being coerced, could do otherwise, so the case would be given an induction by the man behind, whether the coercion comes to the point that the coerced miss the final decision would be a command responsibility (disculpante necessity).

* An instrument that work without guilt. The unimpeachable instrument (if it preserves the domain of fact it would be inducing) or work under a ban error (if the error is beatable, it would be a case of induction).

* Instrument not typically work. Eg to suicide (in Spain is established explicitly.)

* An instrument that work within an apparatus of power. (Ie mafia). When the subject belongs to a hierarchy of power. Possible solutions include: authorship (if the man behind not participating in the execution), command responsibility (the problem of the executing agency is fully accountable and the man behind the controls event (when the executor does not work or coerced nor deception, but is easily replaceable). Jackobsen defends co-authorship. It should be noted the figure of the author behind the author defines the psychological dependence of the executor to the man behind.

* Attempted command responsibility: there escape attempt when the instrument control and mastermind, is usually when the instrument starts the execution.

In the typical action command responsibility is attributed to a person not eligible to answer criminally for her and has been handled by another, which is who actually run the offense.

Table of differences between authors.

Practical Example

In order to leave even more clear who are the authors, participate or mediate, the case lends itself to the crime raised in Guatemala where they killed three Salvadoran representatives and an employee of them.

The authors could be defined as follows:

* AUTHORS OR IMMEDIATE DIRECT

The Guatemalan police officers Luis Arturo Herrera Lopez, Jose Arreaga Korki Lopez, Jose Adolfo Gutierrez and Marvin Langen Escobar Mendez, are accused of being the perpetrators of the massacre, were killed on February 25 inside the maximum security prison “El Boqueron”, where they were detained.

* Mastermind.

Mario Javier Lemus Escobar, 32, alias “Mare surly” Obdulio Estuardo de Leon Lemus, 30, Carlos Amilcar Orellana Donis, 28, Wanner Adilcar Morales Silva.

A Escobar and Leon Lemus Lemus, are accused of crimes of “quadruple murder, conspiracy and conspiracy, while Castillo Orellana Orellana Donis and concealment.

Donis Orellana is the head of the band, and it is possible that with Lemus Escobar, are the “intellectual authors” of the murders.

Conclusions

* I. Authorship in criminal matters is very important because it takes a real and concrete actions to check the offending subject performed, in order to classify it as acted in the crime.

* II. To study the various authors in criminal matters will enable us to gain a better understanding of criminal behavior, and allows us to know that quality hechotes appear the crime.

* III. In our country there are few times that are processed so-called masterminds of the crimes committed, which creates insecurity in the population and lack of confidence in the country’s legal system.

* IV. Establish the responsibility of the authors is essential to create a climate of confidence in the system.

Bibliography

* Criminal Code of the Republic of El Salvador 2007

* Reviewed Penal Code. National Judicial Council 2006

* Salvadoran Penal Law. Dr. Manuel Arrieta Gallegos.

* General Theory of Crime. Francisco Mu~noz Conde

“Try to justice. You must fight for the right, but the day come to conflict of law with justice, fight for justice.” Edward Couture