The bureaucratic effects of criminal procedure reforms: from ‘one day in court’ to fragmented oral trials. The impact on trials for completed intentional homicide in Buenos Aires

Abstract

Reforms aimed at implementing adversarial criminal proceedings have expanded across Latin America in recent decades. In Argentina, the enactment of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure through Law No. 27,063 formally introduced this model at the federal level, and its implementation has been progressing gradually. These transformations have been regarded as among the most significant changes experienced by criminal justice systems in the region, as they are grounded in the goal of enhancing transparency in judicial proceedings and ensuring core principles such as publicity, orality, and concentration. Within this framework, the oral and public trial became consolidated as the central procedural stage, typically characterized by one or a small number of hearings held on consecutive days, during which all evidence is presented and the court’s decision is announced. However, in Argentina, specifically within the national criminal justice system, practices can be observed that tend to fragment these hearings, bringing them closer to dynamics traditionally associated with written proceedings. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of information and communication technologies, whose modalities to some extent continue to shape the conduct of oral trials. In this context, we set out to problematize and ask: to what extent have the principles of publicity, orality, concentration, and immediacy been implemented? Could judicial practices be influencing their effective implementation? To find out, this article examines these recent transformations in the national judiciary through the study of trials for completed intentional homicides, selected because they reduce methodological interferences arising from procedural alternatives to full oral trial, such as abbreviated proceedings comparable to plea bargaining.