Ex ante reading and ex post motivation: The questioned deferred reading of sentences in the Peruvian criminal process

Abstract

This study explores the practice of delayed reading of criminal sentences in the Peruvian judicial system, focusing on emblematic cases where the verdict was announced before its reasoning was made public. Although this practice is contemplated in Article 396.2 of the New Criminal Procedure Code (NCPP), it is criticized for violating the right to immediate judicial justification and, therefore, affecting due process. The objective, aligned with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), was to analyze how delayed reading impacts the procedural and constitutional guarantees of those subject to the law. A qualitative methodology based on literature review and case analysis was employed. The results reveal an epistemic gap and deficiencies in legal representation that weaken judicial transparency and favor the media's influence on the ruling. Furthermore, the discussion highlights a tension between procedural efficiency and constitutional guarantees, jeopardizing the legitimacy of the judicial act. It is concluded that the Peruvian justice system must reform its procedural framework to restore the unity of the jurisdictional act, ensuring that every judgment is pronounced and justified in a single public act, a vital condition for strengthening public trust and the legitimacy of the judicial system. Thus, this research provides a critical perspective on how delayed judgments can affect fundamental rights and offers a basis for promoting procedural reforms that harmonize efficiency with full respect for due process and judicial justification.