The bill, which proposes to create faceless courts to investigate, try and punish crimes committed by criminal organizations, has been questioned by experts and the public ministry.
The effort presented Juan Burgos (Podemos Perú) and non-committee members Jhakeline Ugarte and Esdras Medina are co-authors, in theory, aimed at the integrity of judges and prosecutors and “strengthening the fight against crime”. However, representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office and experts in judicial affairs have warned the Justice and Constitutional Commissions – where the project was recommended – that the idea is unconstitutional and contrary to what is expected from the rule of law.
National Coordinator of Special Prosecutor’s Offices Against Organized Crime Public Ministry The Constitutional Court (TC), in judgment 02287-2013, held that “lawyer anonymity is a practice that violates (or at least threatens to violate) various fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees, while “signifying that under no circumstances should our constitutional procedural model be included.”
To the Prosecutor’s Office, As ruled by the TC, a process where there is an anonymous advocate is invalid and the condition cannot be rectified. By subsequent participation of authorized authorities.
“We hold that the state should not simply abdicate its constitutional duties, for the same reason that crime, undoubtedly, undermines its legitimacy and moral superiority in circumstances outside the constitutional state,” the statement said. was added.
Experts: Not likely
For his part, lawyer Marcos Ibaceta, former head of the Anti-Terrorism Criminal Chamber, noted that in Peru the formula of faceless judges was used to convict those accused of sabotage: “The government publicly acknowledged the existence of innocent people who were arbitrarily convicted, expressed its concern and promised to take steps to correct the excesses (…). All proceedings were canceled and new trials were carried out with a new, more lenient regulatory framework and reduced penalties.
For this reason, Ibazeta maintained that the plan was not viable, as history shows that proceedings with anonymous authorities will be annulled for violation of due process, which would force retrials with sufficient evidence to allow the freedom of those involved.
If a plan of this nature is approved, questions will be raised internationally—from the Inter-American Organization, United Nations And may put Peru under diplomatic and commercial isolation and economic and financial quotas from certain states – the World Bank, the IDB and the International Monetary Fund.
Finally, the former head of the Judiciary, José Luis Legaros, considered the proposal impossible. He pointed out that he was one of the first magistrates to act as a faceless judge, making his voice very important.
He recalled the use of faceless judges and prosecutors in the context of anti-sabotage protests, but the TC declared them unconstitutional.
In addition, Legaros pointed out that, in practice, it is very difficult to maintain the anonymity of magistrates (especially outside of Lima), which is why it turns out to be an inappropriate measure.
