Methodological Guide for the Systematization and Analysis of Jurisprudence Related to Corruption Cases

This guide envisions developing a case compendium on the decisional law pertaining to corruption matters at the Supreme Court of Peru. The guide explains the necessary steps to systematize the jurisprudence in an analytical way, aimed at the design of the compendium that will apply to cases of official corruption. The guide is especially important for the judiciary as it is the first methodological system developed that will be a model for other Supreme Court compendiums addressing different specialties. The compendium will contribute directly to the transparency in exercising the jurisdictional function and the internal coordination of the Supreme Court of the Republic. The guide and compendium are tools that will serve the final beneficiary, the judiciary, with information duly organized for statistical and logistic ends. The determination of the judiciary to develop a methodological guide that allows them to systematize their jurisprudence is based on the previous steps taken by the judiciary at legislative, logistic, and organizational levels in recent years. The context in which this methodological guide falls is related to the status of the anti-corruption jurisprudence, the current system of jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and at the institutional level understanding of the meaning of a compendium relevant to the judgments of the Supreme Court. Acts of official corruption are criminalized by Articles 382-401 of the Criminal Code. The new Criminal Procedure Code was enacted in 2004 and progressively implemented in different judicial districts of Peru. The regulation specified that the validity of the new procedural rules were only related to the corruption offenses mentioned in the previous paragraph. The anticipated enforcement of the new procedural rules for offenses of corruption processes in the judicial districts of the capital of Peru and Callao was because such offenses have a particular connotation and evidential complexity, which required the use of a procedural system much more efficient and that would contribute to clarity. The Supreme Court has two criminal chambers: the Permanent Criminal Chamber that only handles cases under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Transitory Criminal Chamber that only handles cases under the Code of Criminal Procedures. Additionally, and as an exception, the Special Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court may take cognizance of official public corruption crimes when those meet the requirements established in articles 99 and 100 of the Constitution. Focusing on the specific issue of anti-corruption jurisprudence, related to the structure of the resolutions over corruption crimes, we must note that a new structure, clear and well defined to draft the resolutions, is under development. Even though there are a large number of judgments drafted by the rooms through a defined and orderly structure, there is an important sample of other judgments, same type and same rooms, still drafted under a purely basic structure. The development of this new structure aims to provide a clear and well-defined framework for drafting resolutions on corruption crimes, which will contribute to the transparency and consistency of the judiciary's decisions. The Judicial Research Center has successfully led the changes and improvements to the judiciary's jurisprudence search system in recent years. The Information Technology Management of the Judicial Branch has played a technical role and is a direct participant of the informational base of the Supreme Court. The assessment experience, embodied in an earlier document to this guide, highlighted the need to link the direct jurisdictional operators who develop the jurisprudence with the growth of the future compendium, which is also recommended by the judiciary's officials themselves.