PERU: An Introduction to Dispute Resolution: Litigation

Potential Hurdles or Difficulties Faced by Clients and How These Can Be Overcome

The Peruvian justice system has not historically been renowned for its reliability. Whilst it is certainly a system that delivers what is fair and necessary for its intended purposes, it spares no expense when implementing reforms or platform upgrades designed to facilitate users’ work.

These difficulties are naturally familiar to lawyers and other users who are involved in legal matters in one way or another, but we are not always fully aware of the detrimental effects such difficulties have on people who, whilst being users of the legal system, are unfamiliar with the platforms of the judiciary or the state more broadly. This is particularly relevant given that, at present, Peru’s Integrated Justice System (SIJ) is not genuinely “integrated”, contrary to what its name implies.

The SIJ is defined on the Peruvian state’s own website as a “computer system that gathers all the information on judicial proceedings in the country and makes it available to the community”. Undoubtedly, this description is in accordance with Article 10 of the Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (LOPJ), which states that “all judicial proceedings are public, with the exceptions authorised by the Constitution and the laws”. Likewise, it is in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 2 of our Constitution, which establish the promotion of information and communication technologies in the country, as well as the right of individuals to request information from public entities (with the corresponding limitations).

It is undoubtedly reasonable, as well as logical, that citizens should be informed of the status and new aspects that arise in their corresponding proceedings, without the need to depend on legal counsel, even though having legal counsel is an essential requirement for the exercise of a defence in certain matters.

However, in order to fulfil the purpose described above – allowing the parties to review their proceedings – our legal system has provided for different alternatives. The traditional form of review takes place in a physical manner through a visit to the court’s headquarters. However, this is often impractical since, under the jurisdictional rules in place, individuals may find themselves involved in proceedings that are located far from their place of residence, making physical access difficult or even unfeasible.

It is in this context that virtual alternatives arise, such as the “Consulta de Expedientes Judiciales” (CEJ) (Judicial Records Consultation System), or its equivalent for the consultation of Supreme Court proceedings (CEJ Supremo). The CEJ platform offers answers to common queries via its FAQ section, such as whether the service is free or what the platform is intended for. It even includes video tutorials to guide users through the process of checking the status of their cases or viewing related updates.

Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the Integrated Justice System is not really “integrated”. To begin with, the CEJ and the CEJ Supremo, despite their similar purpose, do not share the same platform. Indeed, the CEJ has an independent web page and, although it is functional (subject to the difficulties described below), it certainly has the potential to be a more useful tool.

For its part, the CEJ Supremo is restricted to being an extension of the Aplicativo PJ (like the other state platforms and services) and its use is limited only to the review of case files in a not very user-friendly manner. The service even seems to include tools such as finding out a certain file number, but they have never really been available to users.

One of the more recent difficulties users have faced with the CEJ is the introduction of a new requirement: in order to consult a file, users must now input not only the case number and year, but also the two surnames or the company name of the party involved. This may seem like a minor change or an acceptable privacy safeguard – based on paragraph 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution – but this impression quickly disappears once users realise that the surnames or company names must exactly match the way they were entered by the Central Desk when the case was registered. In other words, even a slight discrepancy in spelling will prevent access to the file. While this requirement arguably hinders the parties themselves, it also presents an additional obstacle for legal professionals, who may face unnecessary complications when trying to check the progress of a case, ultimately causing more problems than it solves.

Ensuring users have genuine access to a stable and effective platform to consult their legal matters is, without doubt, a citizen’s right, as established in the legal provisions mentioned earlier.

Now that we have identified the problem, what is our proposed solution? The answer is straightforward – though its implementation may be less so. The legal system should consolidate the various services available to both litigants and lawyers into a single, unified platform. A robust and comprehensive system should not be limited solely to the review and consultation of files, but should also allow for other critical functions, such as scheduling an appointment with a judge or filing pleadings.

We recognise the challenges and the resources such a development would require. However, the current trend appears to be moving in the opposite direction, with the state – perhaps unintentionally – complicating user access to the SIJ by increasing the complexity of its platforms. In reality, what is needed is simplification and free access (subject to applicable data protection regulations) to create a truly useful and accessible system for all users.