Virtual Justice: Cross-sectional study on the impact of Zoom and other teleworking tools on national justice

During the last two years, Peruvian justice has undergone a radical transformation. Neither the files nor the hearings are face-to-face, everything is now virtual. However, no study has yet been carried out to analyze the impact that this change has had on national justice. We do not know if the virtual tools have brought justice closer to those most in need, if the processes are now faster, if the testimonies are more reliable, if the allocated budget yields more easily or if the procedural burden has been reduced with virtuality . This research aims to fill this gap. For this, a comparison will be made, both qualitative and quantitative, of virtual Peruvian justice versus face-to-face Peruvian justice. In this way, it will be possible to objectively determine which of the two modalities is the most appropriate for a more accessible, close and real justice.

With the pandemic, the Judiciary opted for virtuality (in force until 2023, according to Administrative Resolution 17-22-CSJ). During the last two years, almost all the briefs have been presented before a "Virtual Parties Table", all the hearings have been held under a "Google Meet" room, the sentences are now notified via email and there is no longer any talk with judges by appointment in person are the Secretary of the Court, but now it is enough to fill out a form from the cell phone.

The same has happened with respect to private justice. Conciliation centers now hold virtual hearings, arbitration centers only have digital files and most law firms have remodeled and reduced their offices, creating modalities such as "smart work", where people only go in person if they consider it necessary. , or have replaced their offices with "Zoom Directories and Courtrooms," while all of their attorneys work from home.

Although it may seem natural (because we all use a cell phone now), it is actually a profound change in national justice. For millennia, justice has been done with hearings, writings and paper. Now, instead, the audiences are screens, audios and the internet. How do such changes affect our fundamental rights? Do they suit us? And if so, what can we do to improve it? These are the questions that this research proposal aims to address. Justice is being transformed at a universal level, but no one, absolutely no one, is studying this change.