The 13l Article 130 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1940, in force even here in Lima, as in some other parts of the country, which is not yet in force the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004 provides for the taking of confrontation at the request of the representative of the Public Prosecutor or the accused, and trade respectively. And confrontation or confrontation as LLE is also called, where the litigants, accused to victim, have to be face to face in court. The logic of the principle of immediacy, this hearing should be in the Department of Justice, headed by himself. Then he should proceed to read the cautionary statements and instructuva respectively. And then compare them on existing discrepencias. Should and must relate to questions of the Director of contradictory points about the process. Only that the contradictions that are timely and well-known. Two or three or four prgeuntas period. Because all is said both the preventive and the instructive. And necessarily and inevitably has to be the Provincial Prosecutor, and the parties and their lawyers. This should be so. This is ladiligencia of confrontation, to clarify the differing points. But in practice, what happens?
happens that the coach is not in the Office of the Judge. And sometimes he even the Examine the parties. Neither sees. Front passed to the clerk's office, and this is who makes this important care. Here is where it fails to comply. It distorts the procedural. Why. For as the Provincial Prosecutor, is not present, have to call him. Then the auxiliary court said: The prosecutor is coming, and told to go forward, and crack the problem here, when you have the experience and the suitability of the case.
happens that the coach is not in the Office of the Judge. And sometimes he even the Examine the parties. Neither sees. Front passed to the clerk's office, and this is who makes this important care. Here is where it fails to comply. It distorts the procedural. Why. For as the Provincial Prosecutor, is not present, have to call him. Then the auxiliary court said: The prosecutor is coming, and told to go forward, and crack the problem here, when you have the experience and the suitability of the case.
When you do not have the personality required. Lawyers for both resiliency and / or unfamiliarity with the consent of the Secretary destroy this hearing. And they take one or two Horta, because it elucidates the contradictions, but will return to ask questions that relate to a preventive and / or instructive. Ie lawyers asked subjects who forgot to do in the measures mentioned above. And when a lawyer who knows your stuff, requests the Secretary that adheres to lascontradicciones, bother, and emprampa diligence. It is requested that comes the judge. And there the clerk with Judge antagonizes the lawyer who dared to bring order and claim that this proceeding is denatured. And if the judge is not suitable, also falls into the same. And instead of calling attention to secretary, and ordered the coach, was undertaken with the claimant's attorney. Unfortunately, lately the quality, suitability of some judges and some auxiliary judirisdiccionales leave much to be desired. Has lowered the quality a lot. So the Peruvian Penal Process delay expands, ankylosing, with consequent damage to the litigants. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION. That real reform is undertaken within the judicial support staff, and judges, and good to be put into effect here in Lima to the new Criminal Procedure Code, which is acusatario, guarantees and oralization advcrsativo and dominated in all proceedings intra process.
