Intervention of the public prosecutor’s office and protection of the general interest in honduran civil proceedings according to legal professionals’ perceptions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61273/neyart.v4i5.231Keywords:
administration of justice, civil law, Honduras, legal procedure, legal systems, Public Prosecutor’s OfficeAbstract
The study asked whether legal professionals’ views of prosecutorial activity were associated with their views of general-interest protection in Honduran civil proceedings. Participants were 160 practitioners recruited through convenience contacts. Eligibility required more than one year of civil-law experience and familiarity with prosecutorial participation. Data were collected from February to April 2026 through a WhatsApp link to a 32-item questionnaire with three response options. Thirty items were combined into six five-item scores; the remaining two general questions were kept outside the correlation tests. One methods specialist and two legal specialists examined item content. The 10-participant pilot produced Cronbach’s α=.953. Spearman correlations were ρ=.669 for prosecutorial role/intervention and protection of the general interest, ρ=.786 for FEMAC and legality/public-order control, ρ=.743 for legality/limits and supplementary application/normative integration, and ρ=.592 for legality control and general-interest protection; all four tests had p<.001. The results concern ratings supplied by this group of respondents. They show that the paired scores varied together, without establishing causal direction or measuring institutional performance.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Brusakova, O. V., Shayturo, O. P., Simonovych, D. S., & Kuzubova, T. O. (2021). Submission of a civil suit by a prosecutor in the interests of a state as a way of compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 9(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v9i1.19793
Congreso Nacional de Honduras. (2007). Código Procesal Civil (Decreto No. 211-2006). Tribunal Superior de Cuentas. https://www.tsc.gob.hn/biblioteca/index.php/codigos/661-codigo-procesal-civil
Faggiolo, A., Fuentes Águila, M., & Castellanos Fuentes, P. (2019). La función nomofiláctica como mecanismo de unificación en la interpretación del derecho. Revista CES Derecho, 10(2), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.10.2.3
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). SAGE.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2023). IBM SPSS Statistics 29 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
Gnativ, O., & Troyan, V. (2020). Prosecutor in civil proceedings. Actual Problems of Law, (2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.35774/app2020.02.089
Han, X., & Li, B. (2026). China’s criminal incidental civil public interest litigation in food safety: Practice review and pathways to improvement. Frontiers in Nutrition, (13), 1852511. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2026.1852511
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
Jefatura del Estado de España. (1981). Ley 50/1981, de 30 de diciembre, por la que se regula el Estatuto Orgánico del Ministerio Fiscal. Boletín Oficial del Estado. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/1981/12/30/50/con
Jefatura del Estado de España. (2000). Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil. Boletín Oficial del Estado. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2000/01/07/1/con
Kravtsov, A. Y., & Ryazanova, V. A. (2026). The prosecutor’s protection of the public interest in the current model of civil proceedings. Legal Studies, (3), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7136.2026.3.78644
Li, Y. (2022). The dilemma and countermeasures of public interest litigation of marine environmental pollution in China. Sustainability, 14(21), 14415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114415
Ma, Y., & Xiang, W. (2023). Enforcing law through authoritarian environmentalism? State and non-state actors in China’s environmental public interest litigation. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 52(3), 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681026231185791
Mikhailova, E. V. (2024). Arbitration as a procedural form of protection of public interests. Gosudarstvo i pravo, (3), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.31857/S1026945224030054
Ministerio Público de Honduras. (2025, 24 de septiembre). Fiscales de civil de la Regional de Comayagua son capacitados sobre procesos civiles y de familia. Ministerio Público de Honduras. https://www.mp.hn/publicaciones/fiscales-de-civil-de-la-regional-de-comayagua-son-capacitados-sobre-procesos-civiles-y-de-familia/
Tymoshevska, I. P. (2019). The legal status of the prosecutor in modern civil procedure. Theory and Practice of Jurisprudence, 2(16). https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2019.16.186036
UNESCO. (s. f.). Tesauro de la UNESCO: Administración de justicia, derecho civil, procedimiento legal y régimen jurídico. UNESCO. https://vocabularies.unesco.org/
Valiente-Ángel, R. A., & Chimborazo-Castillo, L. A. (2025). Responsabilidad civil médica y carga probatoria dinámica: Viabilidad jurídica de su aplicación en el proceso civil ecuatoriano. Digital Publisher CEIT, 10(5), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.33386/593dp.2025.5.3541
Wang, W. (2025). The evolution of the legal system of public interest litigation in China: A LDA topic modelling perspective. SAGE Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251395806
Zhang, C. (2023). Civil public interest litigation. In Win in Chinese courts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3342-6_8
