Resumo Sabemos que a ciência é uma preciosa aliada do juiz na busca pela verdade. Mas também sabemos que toda moeda tem a sua outra cara. A ciência pode, de fato, ser uma falsa aliada do juiz, potencializando perigosamente o erro judicial no processo. O assunto é bem conhecido. A justiça criminal agora se fundamenta fortemente nos resultados da ciência, mas tem que lidar com sua sabida falibilidade. Muitas vezes, o processo torna-se o lugar onde peritos e pareceristas revelam as lacunas nessas mesmas disciplinas que deveriam orientar corretamente as decisões dos juízes criminais. Portanto, o juízo criminal sempre precisa de testemunhas. Especialmente testemunhas contra o acusado, é claro. No entanto, atualmente a prova testemunhal como instrumento essencial de tomada de decisão judicial está em crise. Uma crise que surgiu como resultado da redução do direito do acusado de efetivamente questionar as testemunhas que depõem contra ele (ou ela), restringindo as chances de o juiz perceber a versão da testemunha da melhor maneira possível. Esse é o risco de baixar significativamente o standard de qualidade das sentenças criminais. A crise da prova testemunhal no processo penal pode ser atribuída a dois fatores. A primeira razão. A multiplicação de testemunhas protegidas no processo. Figuras que, como uma espécie de contrapartida à sua contribuição para o julgamento, requerem níveis de proteção elevados, constantes e diversificados: pessoas "frágeis" e vulneráveis, menores, pessoas com transtornos mentais, delatores ou testemunhas "anônimas". Como podemos ver, em regra, trata-se de pessoas que costumam testemunhar contra os arguidos. Em relação ao direito e à jurisprudência europeia e italiana a tendência é clara. As necessidades de proteção dessas categorias de testemunhas resultam em redução do número de audiências e, portanto, das oportunidades de confronto dialético entre acusado e testemunha. Isso pode resultar também no impulso para a "personalização" dos métodos utilizados para esse exame cruzado, adaptando-o às necessidades de proteção a serem cumpridas. Em alguns casos, essas formas de proteção podem ser usadas para obter informações mais genuínas da testemunha, mas também não podemos subestimar o risco oposto, de obter declarações qualitativamente menos confiáveis: porque podem estar muito condicionadas por essas necessidades de proteção, impossibilitando ao defensor do acusado a possibilidade de aprofundar alguns pontos controversos. A segunda razão. Em nível político nacional e europeu, prevalece agora a ideia de que a celeridade da Justiça Criminal é o critério primordial para definir o padrão de fiabilidade e solidez de um Estado economicamente avançado. Esta perspectiva dominante é fruto de uma concepção exasperada e errônea do princípio da duração razoável do julgamento (art. 6, par. 1, CEDH e art. 111, par. 2, Constituição Italiana). O fator tempo passa a ser um valor absoluto, apical e atraente no processo penal, o que parece capaz de impactar negativamente também a qualidade da prova testemunhal: nos referimos, em particular, à recente denominada Reforma da Cartabia ao Código de Processo Penal italiano, onde é claramente perceptível um enfraquecimento do princípio fundamental da imediação. Ou seja, o juiz que assiste à produção da prova oral e o juiz que deve proferir a sentença devem ser o mesmo. Quando o juiz de primeira instância muda, a ideia é que a imediação pode ser facilmente substituída pela tecnologia (a gravação audiovisual do depoimento perante o primeiro juiz e posterior visualização da gravação pelo novo juiz).

Abstract We know that science is a precious ally for the judge in the search for truth. But we also know that every coin has its flipside. Science can in fact constitute a false ally for the judge, dangerously channeling the process towards judicial error. The matter is well known. Criminal justice now draws heavily on the results of science, but has to deal with its overt fallibility. Often the process becomes the place where experts and consultants reveal the gaps in those same disciplines that should instead correctly orientate the decisions of criminal judges. Therefore, the Criminal trial always needs witnesses. Especially witnesses against the accused, of course. However testimonial evidence as a fundamental judicial decision making tool is in crisis today. A crisis that has come about as a result of the downsizing of the right of the accused to effectively cross-examine the witnesses testifying against him (or her), thereby reducing the chances for the judge to perceive the witness’s story in the best possible way. Hence the risk of significantly lowering the quality standard of criminal sentences. The crisis of testimony in the criminal trial can be attributed to two factors. The first reason. The multiplication of protected witnesses on the trial scene. Figures who, as a sort of counterpart for their contribution to the assessment, require high, constant and diversified levels of protection: “fragile” and vulnerable people, minors, the mentally ill, witnesses of justice, or “anonymous” witnesses” (undercover agents). As we can see, as a rule, we are dealing with persons who usually testify against the accused. At the level of European and Italian law and jurisprudence the trend is clear. The needs of protection for these categories of witnesses result in a reduction in the number of hearings, and therefore the opportunities for dialectical confrontation between the accused and the witness. The may also result in the push to “personalization” of the methods used for that confrontation, by adapting it to the protection needs to be met. In some cases those forms of protection could be used to get more genuine information from the witness, but we also cannot underestimate the opposite risk of obtaining qualitatively less reliable statements: because they might too conditioned by those protection needs, precluding the defender of the accused the possibility of deepening some controversial points. The second reason. At the national and European political level, the idea now prevails that the speed of Criminal justice is the primary instrument by which to calibrate the standard of reliability and solidity of an economically advanced State. This mainstream perspective is the fruit of an exasperated and erroneous conception of the principle of the reasonable duration of the trial (Art. 6 par. 1 ECHR and Art. 111 par. 2 Italian Constitution). The time factor is now an absolute, apical and absorbing value in the Criminal trial, which seems capable of negatively impacting the quality of the witness evidence as well: we refer, in particular, to the recent so-called Cartabia Reform of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, where a weakening of the fundamental principle of immediacy is clearly perceptible. That is, the judge attending the construction of the oral evidence and the judge who must adopt the judgment must be the same. When the trial judge changes, the idea is that immediacy can be easily replaced by technology (the audiovisual recording of the testimony before the first judge and subsequent viewing of the recording by the new judge).

Abstract: The objective of this work is to show that the evolution of Chilean criminal policy since the criminal procedure reform (2000) is more complex and contradictory than what the doctrine usually affirms about it. Thus, it has tended to be classified as a manifestation of the so-called criminal model of citizen security, placing special emphasis on its populist and punitive nature. On the contrary, mass media, political representatives and public opinion have evaluated the Chilean penal system as overprotect the rights of accused and restrain excessively the state's use of power to punish and prevent criminal behaviors. In this way, and in order to avoid hasty, biased and populist evaluations, we propose an analytical framework based on the crime-policy models identified by the international literature, given that this theoretical body constitutes a complete and reliable method to understand our penal system. This conceptual framework has nine criminal political indicators that allow us to reconstruct with greater precision the different trends that have occurred in Chile since the criminal procedure reform. We can conclude that the model of citizen security prevails in the Chilean penal system, but, as in all democratic penal systems, there are manifestations of other criminal political models (hybrid models).

Resumen El objetivo de este trabajo es exponer que la evolución de la política criminal chilena desde la reforma procesal penal (2000) es más compleja y contradictoria de lo que la doctrina usualmente afirma sobre ella. Así, se ha tendido a calificarla como una manifestación del denominado modelo penal de seguridad ciudadana, poniendo especial énfasis en su carácter populista y punitivista. Por el contrario, los medios de comunicación, los representantes políticos y la población en general han evaluado no tanto las reformas penales, sino el sistema penal chileno en su conjunto como excesivamente garantista. De este modo, y con el fin de evitar evaluaciones precipitadas, sesgadas y populistas, proponemos un marco analítico a partir de los modelos de política-criminal identificados por la literatura internacional, dado que ese cuerpo teórico constituye un método cabal y fiable para comprender el sistema penal chileno. Así, este marco conceptual cuenta con nueve indicadores político criminales que permiten reconstruir con mayor precisión las diferentes tendencias acaecidas en Chile desde la reforma procesal penal. Por tanto, podemos concluir que en el sistema chileno prevalece el modelo securitario, pero, al igual que en todos los sistemas penales democráticos, concurren manifestaciones de otros modelos político criminales (modelos híbridos).

The Nepali legal tradition is a legal hybrid in many regards. Nepal was not colonised by a Western state, and the Hindu legal tradition therefore dominated all areas of law until the middle of the 20th century. Since the 1950s there has been a strong influence of Indian common law. It is probably for this reason that comparative classifications that include Nepal see the legal system as a mixture of common law and customary law. However, other mixtures mark the Nepali legal tradition. French law inspired the ruler in the 19th century, and that influence can still be found in the formal law. In addition, the plurality of Nepalese society made it necessary to provide space for different customary regimes to coexist with the formal Hindu law. When it comes to innovations within the legal system, including international law, the different ingredients interact. In family-related matters, the case-law of the Nepali Supreme Court illustrates the confrontation between international legal standards and the traditional rules. The Supreme Court has referred to the culturally conditioned discrimination against women and called for a thorough (political) analysis in order to eliminate discrimination without a radical change of culture. In the area of discrimination against homo- and transsexuals the Supreme Court took a more innovative approach. It remains to be seen, however, if such a change is effective beyond the courtroom. In the area of private financial compensation for wrongs, the formal (written) Nepali law does not have a general concept of tort. Compensation is generally integrated within the ambit of criminal law. Field research indicates that it would be possible to resort to existing customary principles of compensation rather than to the relatively complex common law of torts favoured by some Nepali scholars. However, this approach might not be without difficulty, as it might imply admitting the "superiority" of the customary practices of ethnic groups of lower standing in society. The example of Nepal shows that innovation in a hybrid system is often marked by the difficulty of - at least apparently - contradictory elements and layers of the legal system. There might be a tendency towards choosing the dominant or the most easily accessible solution. This paper suggests that the hybrid nature of the legal system offers opportunities that could be taken in order to achieve effective change and appropriate solutions.