Bibliographic citations
Castillo, L., (2024). La prueba de oficio en el proceso penal peruano y su relación con el principio de imparcialidad judicial y el debido proceso [Trabajo académico, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27449
Castillo, L., La prueba de oficio en el proceso penal peruano y su relación con el principio de imparcialidad judicial y el debido proceso [Trabajo académico]. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27449
@misc{renati/527173,
title = "La prueba de oficio en el proceso penal peruano y su relación con el principio de imparcialidad judicial y el debido proceso",
author = "Castillo Añazco, Lady Diana",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
The Criminal Procedure Code of 2004, hereinafter referred to as the CPP, is inspired by the accusatorial criminal procedural system, wherein the constitutional principle of “judicial impartiality“ prevails. Its fundamental characteristic lies in the non-contamination of the judge with the presentation of evidence, which falls exclusively upon the procedural parties. Through this principle, the powers of the judge regarding the presentation of evidence in the criminal process are restricted. Although this constitutionally relevant principle is not explicitly established in the Political Constitution of Peru, it is incorporated into the right to due process and effective judicial protection, as stipulated in paragraph 3 of Article 139 of the Constitution. Additionally, it is regulated in international treaties to which Peru is a party. However, despite the characteristics of the established system, this code also provides for “ex officio evidence,“ regulated as an exceptional procedure in Article 385 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This raises an academic concern: Does the use of such ex officio evidence break the constitutional principle of judicial impartiality enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code, and consequently, due process? In this context, the objective of this research is to attempt to answer the posed question, to determine whether the probative action taken by the judge within the reformed criminal process in any way violates the constitutional principle of “judicial impartiality“ regulated in the current CPP and consequently due process. Furthermore, it aims to explain whether it is necessary to establish a reasonable identification criterion to pinpoint exceptional cases where its application is indispensable.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.