Vulneración de la tipicidad de la conducta intachable del juez en las Resoluciones de Junta Nacional de Justicia - Año 2022
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2024
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo
Abstract
La presente investigación surge a raíz de uno de los deberes del juez denominado “guardar en todo momento una conducta intachable”, prescrito en el inciso 17 del artículo 34° de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial y, como este puede generar un diverso bagaje de interpretaciones; lo cual no puede ser ajeno a la perspectiva jurídica. Si bien el ordenamiento jurídico nacional ha contemplado a la conducta intachable del juez como un concepto jurídico indeterminado, este postulado, en el marco de un procedimiento disciplinario, supone una vulneración al principio de tipicidad y a lo dispuesto en el inciso 12 del artículo 48 de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial. En ese sentido, esta investigación pretende contemplar los parámetros que engloban el concepto de la conducta intachable que debe llevar en todo momento un magistrado, así como los criterios que la Junta Nacional de Justicia contempla al momento de atribuir responsabilidad y una posterior sanción basada en el concepto jurídico de la conducta intachable del juez. Por lo que, se realizó un análisis de las resoluciones emitidas por el Pleno de la Junta Nacional de Justicia en el año 2022, las cuales atribuyen responsabilidad a magistrados del Poder Judicial del Perú por haber incumplido su deber de mantener una conducta intachable en todo momento.
ABSTRACT The present investigation arises as a result of one of the duties of the judge called "to maintain at all times an impeccable conduct", set out in paragraph 17 of Article 34 of Law of the Judicial Career, and how this can generate a diverse range of interpretations, which cannot be alien to the legal perspective. Although the national legal system has contemplated the unimpeachable conduct of the judge as an indeterminate legal concept, this postulate, in the framework of a disciplinary procedure, implies a violation of the principle of typicity and the provisions of paragraph 12 of Article 48 of the Judicial Career Law. In this sense, this research aims to contemplate the parameters that encompass the concept of impeccable conduct that a magistrate must always have, as well as the criteria that the National Board of Justice contemplates when attributing responsibility and a subsequent sanction based on the legal concept of the judge's impeccable conduct. Therefore, an analysis was made of the resolutions issued by the Plenary of the National Board of Justice in 2022, which attributed responsibility to magistrates of the Peruvian Judiciary for having failed to comply with their duty to always maintain impeccable conduct.
ABSTRACT The present investigation arises as a result of one of the duties of the judge called "to maintain at all times an impeccable conduct", set out in paragraph 17 of Article 34 of Law of the Judicial Career, and how this can generate a diverse range of interpretations, which cannot be alien to the legal perspective. Although the national legal system has contemplated the unimpeachable conduct of the judge as an indeterminate legal concept, this postulate, in the framework of a disciplinary procedure, implies a violation of the principle of typicity and the provisions of paragraph 12 of Article 48 of the Judicial Career Law. In this sense, this research aims to contemplate the parameters that encompass the concept of impeccable conduct that a magistrate must always have, as well as the criteria that the National Board of Justice contemplates when attributing responsibility and a subsequent sanction based on the legal concept of the judge's impeccable conduct. Therefore, an analysis was made of the resolutions issued by the Plenary of the National Board of Justice in 2022, which attributed responsibility to magistrates of the Peruvian Judiciary for having failed to comply with their duty to always maintain impeccable conduct.
Description
Keywords
Conducta intachable, Procedimiento disciplinario, Ética judicial, Sanción disciplinaria