PRESENTATION

It is very nice to be able to present our university work, the same one that carries the title of
"THE STAGE OF JUDGMENT." This work is the result of an exhausting search for information, as
well as a conscious research on the subject exposed, but above all a lot of effort to develop it
in the best way. We also take the opportunity to thank your person for encouraging research
and intellectual production, as these are elementary tasks that we have as university students
and that will be very useful in the future as excellent professionals. For these reasons we hope
that the work presented below will serve you, not only to nurture our knowledge. In the same
way as the minimum errors you know how to justify them.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this investigation, called PROBLEMATIC SITUATION IN THE TRIAL STAGE, is to
carry out a legal analysis of the provisions of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, since they
constitute inquisitive features in the role of the Judge in the Trial Stage contrary to the
procedural system of which they are part, and even, it would be an interference of the
functions of the Prosecutor and the defence by the Judge, and that they would therefore
compromise and break the impartiality of the judge, among other principles. These institutions
proper to the inquisitive system not only denaturalize the accusatory criminal procedural
model, but also go far beyond the violation of the functional separation in the acts of
investigation (owner of the criminal action and burden of proof, included) that fall exclusively
to the Public Prosecutor's Office and disrupt the judgment that is the Judge's power; it is also
contrary to the impartiality to be observed by the Judge, since evidentiary activity is the power
of the parties and more specifically of the official persecutor of the crime when the
presumption of innocence is distorted.

The trial phase in the new code of criminal procedure, or also known as oral trial, is the central
axis of the procedural system that sought to implement respect for fundamental rights. In our
legislation this phase begins with the direct examination presented by the representative of
the prosecution and then the defense counsel in that order, by virtue of each theory of the
case that has been exposed and supported, will make the judge determine his final decision by
means of the duly reasoned judgment.
From a systemic-functional perspective, then, the purpose of the criminal process is to resolve
a legal dispute submitted to the decision-making power of the Judges and born of a social
conflict of criminal relevance. This systemic purpose is conducted through the declaration (in
the affirmative or negative sense) of the criminal responsibility of a person subject to
prosecution, who has first been charged and charged with a criminal charge in the preparatory
investigation stage and, where appropriate, in the respective oral prosecution (trial).

Because of the function of criminal proceedings, as a whole of the State's system of punitive
reaction, criminal proceedings play the role of legitimizing the criminal reaction itself. This is,
once the punishable act has occurred, it triggers a set of immediate legal consequences to such
a punishable act. Those of procedural order, linked to the work itself of preliminary
investigation, formal preparatory and subsequent prosecution; and as regards the material
criminal law to the legal consequences that, as a consequence of the criminal process, are to
be imposed or not to the subject of proceedings (penalties, security measures, direct, civil
liability, indirect ancillary consequences).

1. The whole system of Punitive reaction of the State politician is contained in ends and
functions criminals. Understanding that the Criminal Politics is that branch of the public politics
that deals with the social problem of the delinquency.

2. From a systemic - functional perspective, of that time, the purpose of the penal process is
that of giving solution to a juridical controversy submitted to the power of decision of the
Judges and born of a social conflict of criminal relevancy. This systemic purpose there leads
route the declaration (in affirmative or negative sense), of the penal responsibility of a person
submitted to process, which first has been imputed and accused of a penal charge in stage of
preparatory investigation and in its case in the respective oral indictment (oral judgment).

3. In reason of the function of the penal process, in order to the set of the system of punitive
reaction of the State, the penal process fulfills the function of legitimization of the proper
penal reaction. This is, as soon as the punishable fact was happened, there breaks loose a set
of immediate juridical consequences to such a punishable fact. Those of procedural order,
linked to the proper work of formal preliminary, preparatory investigation and later
indictment; and in order to the material Criminal law - to the juridical consequences that, as a
result of the Penal Process, will have to be imposed or not to the subject to process (sorrow,
direct accident control measures, legal liability, indirect incidental consequences).

4. Now then, this legitimization work as for the imposition or not of the material juridical
consequences of the crime, they have to do, necessary, with the projection of the
constitutional model in which the penal process settles. In the Peruvian case, this
constitutional model of the constitutional State, is the one that is described in the article 43rd
of the Political Constitution of the State, in congruity, with regard to the proper constitutional
model of penal process, with the article 139 and the article 159.4 of the Constitution, and he
integrated to this constitutional frame, the complete one of the Preliminary Title of the New
Penal Procedural Code. Quite which assigns us and inserts of a side the constitutional model
defined in key democratic design of division of powers and of supremacy of the Constitution
and the Law and of other, it reveals the need that is had of being provided with decisions (in
the ambience of the administration of justice and with extension to the ambience of the Fiscal
Investigation), free of any conditionings extra process and foreign to the frame of the pre-
established legality.

5. In this measurement, of that time, this need for legitimacy and fundamental fidelity to the
frame of the constitutional and ordinary legality, marks for the penal process a model which
must be assigned necessary to this function ambience; function legitimadora of the fiscal and
jurisdictional decisions with a view to the establishment of the penal responsibilities derived
from the commission of a punishable fact. This allocation of penal responsibility, therefore,
must be covered with all the constitutional rights relative to the penal process and be
accentuated in a model of functional penal prosecution to such a target. This model of penal
justice, is the one that has defined our Penal Procedural Code as as a “formal accusatory
model”.

6. This way, this model of criminal indictment, of penal prosecution in good account, is
provided even with three stages: that of the preparatory investigation (preliminary and
formalized), that of the intermediate stage and that of the Oral Judgment; all of them linked to
a political ambience of function criminal good defined from its ascription to what it is claimed
by the proper model of criminal justice of constitutional base.

i) That of the Preparatory Investigation, linked to an ambience of function aportativa of facts

(test elements and investigation acts), defined in its relevancy and conducencia to what it will
be a test matter in the Oral Judgment (hence its preparatory character).

ii) That of the Intermediate Stage; linked to an ambience of function, first of procedural
sanitation and evaluation of the proper Investigation simultaneously that preparation of the
Oral Judgment.

iii) That of the Oral Indictment (Oral Judgment); linked to a function ambience checker as for
the facts (elements of conviction), contributed previously to the process. Cross-check that in
terms of procedural acts as a whole (acts of test), practised in immediacy, contradiction, orality
and publicity, will have to give like turned out that of the assumption of condemnatory or
exculpatory conviction; or in its defect of reasonable doubt that prevents a condemnation is
already for application of the undue process or of convincing insufficiency. With this
Introduction then, let's define what is the Oral Judgment or Judicial definition.

CHAPTER 1

1. - THE PROBLEMS IN THE STAGE OF JUDICIAL DEFINITION OR ORAL JUDGMENT

The penal process is structured on the base of three quite pronounced stages: the preparatory
investigation, the intermediate stage and the judicial definition. In this common penal process,
each of the stages earlier mentioned fulfills a purpose, this way in the preparatory
investigation for what one looks, the fact is that the district attorney in charge of the pursuit of
the crime gathers the elements of charge or of defense that allow him to decide if it
formulates accusation, or if on the contrary it needs dismissal, these two pronouncements of
the district attorney's office it must be seen and discussed in the intermediate stage, specially
in the respective oral hearings, so, in this stage, he will be the judge of preparatory
investigation if he decides that the cause has enough entity of load of elements of conviction
to go on to judgment or, the opposite case, to dismiss the case and to avoid a censer oral
judgment, in sum, to this phase the function that is assigned to him is that of having a
character bifronte, since on the one hand it allows a control of the activity realized in the
intermediate stage, and on the other hand it prepares the oral judgment giving formal and
substantial validity to the fiscal accusation (Del Rio, 2014). The oral judgment is the last stage,
and the stellar phase of the process (article 356 of the penal procedural Code), here the test
takes place in a contradiction context that will allow to the judge if he condemns or absolves
the accused. Since it can turn every stage has its own function and inside each of them there
exists the possibility of being able to activate certain procedural mechanisms linked exactly to
the targets that each of the mentioned phases chases. In accordance with the context of
functionality of each of the stages of the common penal process that has described in the
previous paragraph, vital retrieval importance the subject-matter of the exceptions and the
stages of the penal process in that it would correspond to be able to interpose them. Known it
is that the penal procedural exceptions are regulated in the article 6 of the penal procedural
code, between them we can mention that of inadmissibility of action, nature of judgment, of
prescription of judged thing and of amnesty.

2.-MARCO CONCEPTUAL AND NORMATIVE

The stage of the ORAL JUDGMENT or JUDICIAL DEFINITION is the stage of the Penal Process
more important, as well as the functions politician criminals already mentioned in the
introductory part of present. In this stage of the process there are practised truly the acts of
test that in a direct or indirect way were determining in the Juzgador the conviction or doubt -
with regard to the achievement or the crime and its link for with the subject processed in
terms of penal responsibility. The beginning of the Oral Judgment or Judicial definition, the
article is marked the same way as 353rd with the NCPP, for the subpoena car to Judgment.
Being like that, it finishes with the pronouncement of the definitive Judgment expressed by the
respective Jurisdictional organ, once closed of the plenary debate; the same way as the article
392nd of the NCPP.

The note of superlative importance that is had of the Oral Judgment or Judicial definition is
defined to depart not only from a legal consideration (shape the article 356th of the NCPP),
but also for the fact that in her is where there will be solved finally the penal conflict that is
born with the really punishable commission. To it he will have to meet, as everyone knows,
that of the performance of tests as correlato plenary of the cross-check in terms of immediacy,
contradiction, orality and publicity of the elements of test contributed by the one who holds
the burden of proof in the penal process (the Attorney General), and if perhaps, of the
procedural part imputed in the same one. It is a myth, I think, nevertheless, that the judicial
definition in the New Penal Procedural Code is radically different from the previous model of 8
penal prosecution, in its oral phase.

Certainly they are different, although they maintain levels of similarity that bring them near,
with what the correct knowledge of the rules of the penal process in its oral paragraph and
character definitorio substantial, that are that of the characters you base of ORALITY,
 IMMEDIACY, CONTRADICTION AND PUBLICITY, are valid for both models, that of 1940 and that
of 2004.

In this regard, as I have received to reiterate, and in accordance with article 356th NCPP, as the
main stage of the process, it must take a set of guarantees in its materialization. Guarantees
that are related, as has been said, to the role of criminal proceedings 9 in the imposition of the
legal consequences of the crime and that have a direct connection with the constitutional
model of the rule of law and the procedural model in which it is established. And on the other,
with a view to a correct verification of the facts and elements of conviction provided by the
procedural parties at the contributory stage of the process, which is that of the Preparatory
Investigation; that is, the principles of ORALITY, CONTRADICTION, IMMEDIACY AND PUBLICITY.
Principles linked to the model of process of constitutional basis that must necessarily be
complemented, as does article 356 of the NCPP itself, with others of a criminal political nature
such as continuity in the trial, concentration of the acts of the trial, physical identity of the
judge and clearly this - the presence of the accused and his defender. all this, however, has a
basic and fundamental budget; discussed in the corresponding section of the intermediate
stage. and it is that the trial is constructed on the basis of the indictment, which determines
the area of evidentiary action to take place in the oral trial, at the same time that it deduces
and introduces the criminal claim of the state (solitude of punishment and civil reparation -
assertion of criminal and civil responsibility - on the basis of criminally relevant facts),
constructed not as a mere particular deduction made by a party in the process (typical of the
civil model in terms of the application), but from a previous procedure initiated by the State
itself and given the guarantees of due process and attentive to the principle of officialdom
while the object of the proceedings (the offence), is of a public nature.1

3.-PRINCIPIOS RECTORES DEL JUICIO ORAL O DE

JUZGAMIENTO EN EL NUEVO CÓDIGO PROCESAL
PENAL

La reforma del proceso penal, trae como consecuencia diferentes variantes que se manifiestan sobre
todo en la revalorización de la etapa estelar del proceso penal: LA ETAPA DE JUZGAMIENTO O DE JUICIO
ORAL. Y es que en el CPP vigente se buscó darle mayor efectividad a la etapa de instrucción, este NCPP,
cambia su perspectiva y punto de partida: los juicios orales son el eje del sistema procesal que se
pretende implantar como garantía de respeto de los derechos fundamentales.
En el presente capitulo tendremos oportunidad de analizar, como inciden los principios de juicio oral en
la configuración de un proceso penal acusatorio. asimismo, los principios que orientan la actividad
probatoria.
  ASENCIO MELLADO: el acto de juicio oral es el principal del proceso penal.
 NEYRA FLORES: constituye el verdadero debate que presenta el proceso penal, en
donde se ponen de manifiesto todos los principios del sistema acusatorio en donde se
puede destruir toda la presunción de inocencia que inspira todo el proceso.
 NCCCP: ART.356 NUMERAL 1: “el juicio orales la etapa principal del proceso
penal”.

3.1.-PRINCIPIO OF ORAL JUDGMENT. -

Roxin supports, that a process is oral, if the foundation of the judgment is realized exclusively
by means of the de facto material got verbally in the judgment. It is understood by orality, the
procedural form that implies basing the legal ruling only with the material contributed on the
parts by means of the spoken word, and especially in the test developed orally before the
judicial organ And so, the article 361 ° of the Penal Procedural Code establishes that:“ The
hearing is realized orally, but any request researches in record or question proposed in hearing
will be argued orally, as the reception of the tests and, in general, any intervention of those
who take part in her” This way, the orality turns into the best component for the convincing
performance, every time, across the same one there express themselves both the parts, and
witnesses and experts. On the other hand, it is necessary to bear in mind that the orality does
not mean the reading of writings that the immediacy and the contradictory one would affect;
on the contrary, it is the declaration that must be heard on all the procedural parts.

3.2.-PRINCIPIO OF IMMEDIACY. –

it is that guarantee that the accused has so that the judge could be in direct contact with the
test.

This beginning recounts that nobody must come up between the judge and the direct
perception of the test; for the achievement of this beginning we must be provided with the
instrument of the orality because the concentration propitiates the mediation. If the judge
does not have the capacity to be straight with the witness who is will act with its declaration
like test way, then it is not in conditions to realize a real credibility judgment with regard to
what the witness will show across its verbal language and gestual; therefore, for lack of
immediacy, we are always going to be before slightly reliable information, without being
garantista to found validly a condemnatory judgment under these circumstances. An
accusatory system grants the importance due to the immediacy of the judge with the test,
reason for which inclusive if it is a question of a key witness and it does not appear in the oral
judgment, the district attorney or defender that needs it will not be able to present like test
the evidence that this one gave in the preparatory investigation, without having been valued
by the judge of judicial definition who will give him convincing value to the above mentioned
declaration; being that, if the above mentioned written declaration is accepted, the judge or
judges of the collegiate one, they will only have an immediacy with the role and not with the
organ of test (witness) On this matter, the teacher Mixan Mass, he affirms that it is the direct
interpersonal relation:“ opposite to front”, "face to face" between the accused and the
juzgador, between the accused and accuser, between the accused and the defenders and
between these and the juzgador and the accuser, respectively; also between the witness
and/or expert, the accuser and the juzgador, between the the injured party or the civil actor
and the third civilly responsible one. In this sense, it is possible to say, that the immediacy is a
direct interpersonal relation of all between themselves and to its shift.

there are typical notes:

• i) Nevertheless, the beginning of immediacy goes further away that only the direct relation
between the Judge and the accused, meanwhile this one will have to happen as regards all the
participants of the process, is already the accused, the the injured party, the third civil one, the
witness, the experts, etc.

• ii) This way, the beginning of immediacy prevents – along with the right defense
correspondent - from judging a person in absence. Constitutional prohibition for the others,
similar the article 139.12 Constitution.

• iii) The immediacy also clairvoyance when the Judge appreciates the tests of a direct way,
since only this way it will be able to form an opinion adapted about the facts that propitiated
the penal process.

• iv) In this sense, the NCPP, it establishes that: "the Penal Judge will not be able to use for the
deliberation tests different from those according to the law incorporated in the judgment” 17.
IT BE TWO O'CLOCK the ONLY EXEPCIONES those who are constituted by that of the EARLY
TEST and the TEST PRECONSTITUIDA, both only for urgency reasons and of irrepetibilidad of
the act, the same way as it indicates it and establishes the article 393 °. 1 give NCPP.

• v) The IMMEDIACY, it depends functionally and procedimentalmente of the ORALITY AND

THE CONCENTRATION, SIMULTANEOUSLY THAT, OF THE CONTRIDICCION, meanwhile the
immediacy allows the correct contradiction between partes18

3.3.-PRINCIPIO OF CONTRADICTION. -

This beginning, it wraps that nobody can be condemned without being heard and encido in
judgment; which implies that the accused has the possibility of defending itself expressing
itself freely on each of the ends of the imputation done in its against. The imputation or
accusation, it is the sight of this beginning, which bears to which the accused denies it in all its
ends or partly, to disregard or to reduce the consequence juridical penalty resultant from the
imputation, it must be helped with all the test means that to be able to strengthen its
argumentation opposite to the imputation. The contradiction derived from the right of
defense, allows also the judge to be able to accept an information that has been processed
properly and put itself to the test as it is the declaration of the witness; must move it to the
counterpart, giving him opportunity to reject it and this way to spoil the imputation done in its
against.

This beginning 3 is recognized by the International Agreement of Civil and Political Rights in the
interjection, separated d), of the article 14: "During the process, every person accused of a
crime will have a right, in full equality, to the following minimal guarantees to be present in the
process and to defend itself personally or to be assisted by a defender of its election; to be
informed, if it should not have defender, about a right that helps him to have it, and, whenever
the interest of the justice demands it, to that he should be nominated an office defender, free,
if he will lack means sufficient to pay it”. In the European Convention of Human rights, article
6.3, separated

A): “Every accused has, like minimum, the following rights: (…) to defend itself for himself or to
be assisted by a defender of its election and, if he lacks means to pay it, to be able to be
assisted free by a public defender, when the interests of the justice like that demand it”. And
the American Convention of Human rights in the paragraph

B) of the article 8.2: "During the process, every person has a right, in full equality, to the
following minimal guarantees, right of accused of defending itself personally or of being
assisted by a defender of its election and of communicating frees and privately with its
defender.”

In the same sense the NCPP of 2004 is pronounced in the article IX of the Preliminary Title
referred to the right of defense: "Every person has an inviolable right and irrestricto which he
is informed about its derechosa to be assisted by a Defense lawyer of its election or, in its case,
by a public defender, since it is quoted or detained by the authority. Also it has a right to which
a reasonable time is granted to him so that it prepares its defense; to exercise its material self-
defense; nobody can be forced or induced to declare or to recognize guilt against himself,
against its spouse, or its relatives inside the fourth grade of consanguinity or second of affinity;
the penal process guarantees, also, the exercise of the rights of information and of procedural
participation to the person offended or harmed by the crime. The public authority is forced to
look over its protection and to offer to him a dealing according to its condition.” The
"contradiction beginning in the penal process, particularly in the JUDICIAL DEFINITION,
presents itself as a DECLARATION OF THE RIGHT OF DEFENSE. So that he is considered, so
much more than other beginning – and at the same level that that of the ORALITY - as of
forced presence along the ORAL JUDGMENT. Its importance and momentous presence,
nevertheless, becomes more clear during the CONVINCING ACTIVITY.

Its typical notes are:

It guarantees the possibility that the parts sustain in judgment its positions with regard to the
charges of imputation and of the test that is executed in happiness etapa12, so that there will
be able to develop a reciprocal control of the procedural activity based on the opposition of
arguments and reasons on the controversial points in proceso13.

ii) In reason of the previous thing, a set of essential notes is established to the sense of
GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT intrinsic DEFENDER to its presence.

• It guarantees the right to be heard by the JUZGADOR.

• It guarantees the right to deposit tests and that these are admitted as soon as they are
pertinent for the process.

• It guarantees the right to control the activity of the opposite part.

It guarantees the right to refute the position on contrary, as for the merit of the same ones
and of its own arguments, whenever they turn out to be harmful to themselves.

iii) The possibility of being prosecuted and limited by the Juzgador. THE right to the
contradictory one cannot be used arbitrarily on the parts, but it must be exercised by the due
respect to the requirements of the corresponding beginning, as it is that of equality of weapon.
There has to be prosecuted therefore the same way as the order of direction and disciplinary
power of the Juzgador. Of it one detaches that:

• In the procedural proceedings of the parties, there can be no abuse of the right referred to.
As for time, as for mode, as for form and as for content.

• Even if the CONTRADICTORY, it materializes with greater force and forcefulness in THE
INTERROGATIONS AND CROSS-EXAMINATION; limitations are given so that QUESTIONS
CANNOT BE ASKED; CAPCIOUS, SUGGESTED, IMPERTIENT, ETC, ETC.

(iv) All this leads to the establishment that the CONTRADICTORY PRINCIPLE implicitly protects a
FUNDAMENTAL right of the defendant: that he has the possibility to defend himself against
the accusations made against him (material defense) and that he has at the same time the
possibility of choosing a defense lawyer or, failing that, he is assigned an official defender
(technical defense). The latter in reason that it will be through his private DEFENSE LAWYER, of
his free choice - that can - it is understood so - better exercise his right of defense through the
CONTRADICTORY.

In this regard, the following CHARACTERISTIC NOTES are presented:

• Continuous continuity of sessions. The so-called CONTINUOUS HEARING is therefore

established (as provided for in article 360.1 NCPP). Which means, according to the very order
that "installed the hearing, it will continue in continuous and uninterrupted sessions until its
conclusion. If it is not possible to hold the debate in a single day, it will continue for
consecutive days until its conclusion. "

• The possibility of suspension of the hearing, only linked to criteria of legality and necessity
(according to article 363.2 NCPP). That is, JUDGE'S DISEASE, FORCE MAJEURE OR DISPOSITION
OF THE LAW.

• The possibility of suspending the HEARING, to be continued with a maximum period of 8

days, after the last hearing session (as established by 360.3 NCPP. This under penalty of
BANKRUPTCY OF TRIAL.

• The need, even to move from the COURT PREMISES in order to verify the hearing where a
WITNESS or EXPERT is located (of particular importance and importance in the process),
according to article 363.4 NCPP.

3.4.- PRINCIPLE OF ADVERTISING. -

Advertising is a specific guarantee enshrined in article 139 (4) of the Constitution of Peru. The
publicity of the debates is the possibility of physical assistance of society in general to the
execution and practice of the test. (Sendro, 2007) The principle of publicity implies that there
should be no secret justice, hidden procedures, or failures without precedents or motivations.
The accusatory guarantee system establishes as a general rule that all acts are public, except
for certain exceptions where the secrecy of some diligence or document is ordered for a
limited time. The publicity at the research stage means that all procedural subjects can know
at any time, the actions and also obtain copies of them. The principle of publicity is enshrined
in international treaties to which Peru is a party, thus, Article 8 (5) of the American Convention
on Human Rights states that: "the criminal proceedings must be public, except in what is
necessary to preserve the interests of justice." Similarly, in our country, it is regulated in article
139 (4) of the Constitution of Peru, and article I (2) of the Preliminary Title and article 357 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to this principle, article 357 of the above-
mentioned Code states that the oral proceedings are public, however, that the Court may, by a
special reasoned order, decide, even on its own initiative, that the oral proceedings are carried
out in whole or in part in private. Finally, the code has established that the reading of the
judgment will always be public, except in cases where the interest of minors demands
otherwise.

3.4.1.- NOTES CHARACTERISTIC OF PUBLICITY IN THE TRIAL OR ORAL TRIAL IN CRIMINAL

PROCEEDINGS.

With regard to publicity in the Court, the following notes may be submitted:

a. Direct publicity. - When there is unrestricted audience attendance in the audience.

b. Indirect advertising. - When knowledge of it is given through the media.

3.4.2. RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PUBLICITY IN COURT. While it has been established
that the public character is not - in principle - and essentially, of an unrestricted nature;
attention should be paid to the purposes of criminal proceedings, consistent with their criminal
political functions; it is noteworthy that there IS THE POSSIBILITY OF RESTRICTING THE RIGHT
TO "BE HEARD PUBLICLY," in accordance with this fundamental right of procedural order. This
possibility of restrictions occurs in two blocks: first, linked to the INSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. The second, linked to the DISCIPLINARY powers of the Judge.

To this extent, the Act establishes a set of restrictions on the public character of the trial, all of
which are set out in article 357 of the NCPP; PROVIDING FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF PARTIAL OR
COMPLETE RESTRICTION OF THE PUBLIC NATURE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AT THEIR ORAL
STAGE (TRIAL):

(i) Where the modesty, privacy, or physical integrity of any participant in the trial is directly
affected;

(ii) Public order or national security is seriously affected;

(iii) The interests of justice are affected or, enunciatively, a particular secret, commercial or
industrial, whose undue disclosure is punishable or causes unjustified harm, as well as when
manifestations occur by the public that disturb the regular conduct of the hearing;

(iv) It is provided for in a specific rule. For example, Law 27115 (on public protection of the
identity of the minor subject of sexual assault to his or her detriment).

4.- STAGE OF TRIAL OR ORAL TRIAL

The trial stage is the most important phase of the common process, is a set of formal acts
ordered according to a logical sense, The oral trial is the procedural stage where the means of
evidence admitted to prosecution control will be developed and acted upon, this phase takes
place in sessions, being without a doubt the fundamental period or moment of criminal
proceedings, since it is intended for the input of evidence and for the production of human
rights defenders' reports, both the company and the private sector in front of the court. As
such, the oral trial is the discussion of the evidence gathered in the proceedings, which is
carried out in an accusatory manner and in which the principles of contradiction, publicity,
orality, immediacy and continuity govern. While it is there that the social conflict that
underlies and gives rise to criminal proceedings is definitively resolved, it cannot but be the
centre of criminal proceedings. (M. Binder, 1993) The stage of the oral trial, Giovanni Leone
teaches, covers that set of activities that unfold from the beginning of the opening formalities
until the end of the discussion. (Gioffred) In the oral trial stage, the hearings are the scene
where the evidence is practiced ex officio and defense; there it takes place, both the definitive
plans of prosecution and defence, based on practical evidence, and the legal debates on the
criminal facts. It is to be urged that its pre-eminence and transcendental importance, over and
above the other procedural stages, consists in the fact that criminal conduct is subject to
prosecution at the oral trial hearing and that, after discussion, the court, judging, renders
judgment. Oral judgment is presented as the most appropriate mechanism for achieving the
logical reproduction of the criminal act; as the most efficient to discover the truth; as the best
fit for the judge to form a righteous and mature conviction; as the one most capable of
excluding judicial arbitration and giving the parties an opportunity to defend their interests;
such as allowing public control of judicial acts; which is a source of righteousness,
enlightenment and assurance of justice; as the one that best meets the constitutional
requirements (Mariconde, 1986) In rigor, the oral trial is integrated by a set of acts formally
regulated and ordered according to a dialectical method according to a legal logic: proposition,
proof and discussion of the questions to be decided, in such a way that the content of the
process is amplified. From this perspective, while the oral proceedings provide the evidence
and produce the reports of the defenders of the parties before the court, the instruction has
only a preparatory function, of unquestionable value, but by itself it does not serve to supply
the elements of conviction that are necessary as the basis of a judgment providing for the
fundamental rights of persons, by acquittal or conviction (Ferrándiz, 1987).

Order for summons to trial With the order for summons to trial, the oral trial begins, whereby
all persons involved in the proceedings (accused, aggrieved, witnesses and experts) are cited,
the same ones that will give content and existence to the debate. The purpose of the
summons to trial is the coincidence in time and space (courtroom), of all the procedural
subjects; as well as witnesses, experts and evidence who have to intervene in the proceedings.
As can be seen, this is not only a mere resolution, but, on the contrary, a resolution of valuable
importance that seeks to prepare for the development of oral judgment. In the summons to
trial order is identified through the names, the witnesses to act their statement in oral trial.

Principles developed in the trial As the author Baytelman refers, that the principles of oral
judgment are conceived as a set of ideas outside or policies that must be taken into account
for the judgment of a person Accordingly, the principles are fundamental rules or set of
indicators that guarantee the correct management and development during the beginning and
culmination of the oral trial. The specific principles of oral judgment are basic procedural
categories that govern the initiation, development and conclusion of the audience Within the
classical principles we have.

5.- ORAL TRIAL PHASES

5.1. THE TRIAL STAGE. -

The accusatory model of trial or trial is the main stage of the process, is carried out on the
basis of the indictment, without prejudice to the procedural guarantees recognized by the
Constitution and the international human rights treaties adopted and ratified by Peru, at this
stage orality, publicity, immediacy and contradiction in the

evidentiary performance. In addition, it observes the principles of continuity of trial,

concentration of the acts of trial, and physical identity of the judge and mandatory presence of
the accused and his or her defender. The hearing takes place continuously and can be
extended in successive sessions until its conclusion, so the trial can be held quickly.

For the development of the third stage of the process, it is foreseen that the criminal judge of
trial could be single-person for the less serious crimes, many of which are now summary
proceedings, or composed of three judges, for the crimes that are of ordinary procedure; but
they are always the judges of first instance. Consequently, the superior chamber does not
intervene in the trial stage; will do so at the challenge stage in order to recognize the appeal
against judgements rendered by trial judges or

of preparatory research. The trial is the full and main stage of the criminal proceedings,
because it is where it is "resolved" or "redefined" in a definitive way in social conflict that
underlies and gives rise to the criminal process The oral trial is much stricter and more precise
in the rule of production of proof, than a written system, but requires greater preparation.

According to Alberto Linder, the first phase of any oral trial is the preparation of the trial. In
the oral trial, a number of people and things that will give content and life to that judgment
must coincide both in time and in space, for example: it is unpredictable that all procedural
subjects and the judge are present at the same time, since by the principle of immediacy they
cannot delegate their functions; judges, prosecutors, defenders, witnesses, experts,
documents, things, etc. They must coincide temporarily and spatially in the salt of hearings.
Likewise, the proof that will be valid will only be the one that occurs in the trial and that is
incorporated to it according to the planned mechanisms.

A. INITIAL PHASE. -

Angel Osorio: "the brevity of the arguments is the majar of the judges" also called preliminary
or investigation phase, consists of a preparatory stage of the oral trial, where prosecutors, to
the assistance of the police and specialized investigative bodies, investigate the reported facts,
collecting the means of evidence that could be used to support the indictment of an individual
in front of a Tribunal. It begins with the filing of the complaint and concludes when the
accused person is at the disposal of the judge.

B. EVIDENTIARY PHASE. -

At the end of the investigation phase, at this stage the prosecutor could request the temporary
or final dismissal of the case, otherwise, that is, if the necessary background is gathered, he
makes an indictment against the defendant. Since there is an indictment against the
defendant, it must be presented in writing together with the evidence intended to be
produced in the oral trial.
The Judge shall have the preparatory hearing and give a time limit to the defence to present
the discharges in writing or verbally at that hearing, at the end of which the judge shall decide
the author of the opening of the oral trial and the court that shall see the matter.

C. DECISION-MAKING PHASE. -

The stage of development is the central stage of the criminal procedure, consisting of one or
more necessary, continuous and public hearings, at which the prosecutor must make his or her
indictment orally. On the contrary, the accused and his defence counsel must present the
defence and dispute the evidence against him to be assessed by the Tribunal.

6.- PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE EVIDENTIARY ACTIVITY

the evidentiary activity carried out in the oral trial in the framework of an accusatory system is
carried out with full respect for fundamental rights, as well as observing the principles
explained below, since the clarification of the truth constitutes us as the ultimate purpose of
the process.

in the application of this principle, respect for the dignity of the human being must be taken
into account, since it can invoke a rule that infringes the rights of individuals.

6.1 PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY. -

the acquisition, receipt and valuation of the evidence must be carried out in accordance with
our legal system, which does not imply adopting the system of valuation of legal or assessed
evidence.

in the application of this principle, respect for the dignity of the human being must be taken
into account, since a rule cannot be invoked, which infringes the rights of persons.

6.2.- PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACY. -

it is also called a legitimation principle, it implies that the subject who provides the evidence
and the person who values it (judge) must be authorized to do so, it is a procedural power.

6.3 PRINCIPLE OF THE FREEDOM OF EVIDENCE. -

it is based on the maxim that everything can be proved and by any means, that is to say the
normative text only establishes us evidentiary means in an exemplary, non-taxative way, since
all are admissible to achieve conviction as any principle finds its exceptions in the fundamental
rights.ejm. telephone intercept.

6.4 PRINCIPLE OF PERTIENENCE OF PROOF. -

implies the logical relationship between the means of evidence and the fact to be proved.The
evidence is relevant where the medium refers directly to the object of the
procediemiento.ejm.la pre-existing pregnancy expertise is relevant for the investigation of the
offence of abortion, but for a tax offence.

6.5 PRINCIPLE OF CONDUCTION. -

it manifests itself when the means of proof are conducive, they have the potential to create
judicial certainty. This principle is related to the principle of utility.

6.6 UTILITY PRINCIPLE. -

a means of proof will be useful if it is relevant to solving a particular and specific case. its
efficiency is shown after the evaluation of the evidence.superabundance of evidence is not
useful, for example: to offer many witnesses who testify about the same fact.

CONCLUSIONS

• The court hearing is the second stage of the ordinary labour process, if there is no agreement
at the conciliation stage. The following phases are carried out: confrontation of positions,
evidence, pleadings and judgment.

• The Trial Stage The objective is to find the truth, the search for the truth and thereby punish
or absolve the accused, through a sentence, which could be: punitive or exculpatory, as the
case may be.

• Its primary objective is to pass judgment on the grounds expressed by the parties to the
proceedings: the prosecutor, the State defender and the defence lawyer, the defendant's
representative. | It had no time limit.

• It constitutes the stage of preparation and performance of the Oral Trial, which ends with the
sentence. The central part is the oral trial itself, where the parties have taken opposing
positions and debate the evidence in order to convince the judge of the innocence or guilt of
the accused.