Inteligencia artificial y tecnologías emergentes en el sistema de justicia penal peruano
Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies in the Peruvian criminal justice systemContenido principal del artículo
Introducción: El crimen organizado ha evolucionado hacia un paradigma tecnológico avanzado, utilizando criptoactivos, comunicaciones encriptadas e inteligencia artificial, lo que genera una asimetría crítica frente a los sistemas de justicia penal tradicionales en América Latina. Objetivo: Evaluar la suficiencia del marco normativo penal peruano frente a la evidencia digital algorítmica y proponer estrategias jurídicas para su admisión constitucional. Metodología: Se aplicó un análisis dogmático-comparativo junto con tests de subsunción normativa, examinando la compatibilidad de algoritmos predictivos, sistemas de reconocimiento facial y herramientas forenses automatizadas con las garantías procesales constitucionales. Resultados: Se identificaron riesgos constitucionales derivados de la opacidad de los procesos algorítmicos, afectando derechos fundamentales como el derecho de defensa y la motivación de las resoluciones judiciales. La normativa actual carece de mecanismos claros para garantizar transparencia, auditabilidad y proporcionalidad en el uso de evidencia digital. Conclusiones: Se propone desarrollar un estatuto de “Debido Proceso Tecnológico” que integre estándares de transparencia algorítmica, auditabilidad y proporcionalidad digital. Este marco, inspirado en regulaciones comparadas de la Unión Europea y Estados Unidos, permitiría que la digitalización de la persecución penal preserve los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y, al mismo tiempo, potencie la eficiencia investigativa frente al crimen organizado contemporáneo.
Introduction: Organized crime has evolved toward an advanced technological paradigm, utilizing crypto-assets, encrypted communications, and artificial intelligence. This shift has created a critical asymmetry when compared to traditional criminal justice systems in Latin America. Objective: To evaluate the adequacy of the Peruvian criminal legal framework regarding algorithmic digital evidence and to propose legal strategies for its constitutional admissibility. Methodology: A legal-dogmatic and comparative analysis was applied, alongside normative subsumption tests. The study examined the compatibility of predictive algorithms, facial recognition systems, and automated forensic tools with constitutional procedural guarantees. Results: Significant constitutional risks were identified stemming from algorithmic opacity, which affects fundamental rights such as the right to a defense and the requirement for reasoned judicial decisions. Current regulations lack clear mechanisms to ensure transparency, auditability, and proportionality in the use of digital evidence. Conclusions: The study proposes the development of a "Technological Due Process" statute that integrates standards for algorithmic transparency, auditability, and digital proportionality. This framework, inspired by comparative regulations from the European Union and the United States, would allow the digitalization of criminal prosecution to preserve citizens' fundamental rights while enhancing investigative efficiency against contemporary organized crime.
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Cómo citar
Referencias
Aliaga, C., Ravello, A., Sares, D., and Leon, M. (2025). Would you Steal me a Like? Undercover Operations in Digital Environments within the Peruvian National Police. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 156–164. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4055/icaiw_aiesd_4.pdf
Cefeidas Group. (2023). Navigating Artificial Intelligence: Trends and debates in Latin America. Cefeidas Group. https://www.cefeidas.com/2023/09/14/cefeidas-group-navigating-artificial-intelligence-trends-and-debates-in-latin-america/
CEJA. (2024). Plan de acción 2024. Justice Studies Center of the Americas. https://cejamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/JSCA-Workplan-2024-English_ok.pdf
DHS. (2024). Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Criminal and Illicit Activities. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0927_ia_aep-impact-ai-on-criminal-and-illicit-activities.pdf
Díaz, F., Cerna, N., and Liza, R. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Crime in Latin America: A Multilingual Bibliometric Review (2010–2025). Information, 16(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/info16111001
Dote, J. P., and Espinosa, M. T. J. (2025). Money laundering risks of cryptocurrencies: Towards coordinated regulatory and technological strategies. Latin American Journal of Central Banking, 100194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.latcb.2025.100194
Europol. (2025). The changing DNA of serious and organised crime. European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation. https://doi.org/10.2813/0758057
Fair Trials. (2024). Artificial intelligence in public security and criminal justice systems in Latin America. Due process-based analysis. fairtrials.org. https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2024/08/Artificial-intelligence-in-public-security-and-criminal-justice-systems-in-Latin-America.pdf
Fernando, Z. J., & Anditya, A. W. (2024). AI on The Bench: The Future of Judicial Systems in The Age of Artificial Intelligence. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 13(3), 523-550. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.13.3.2024.523-550
Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, C. (2023). The Right to a Glass Box. Cornell Law Review, 109(561), 563-626. https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/Garrett-Rudin-final.pdf
Glass, M. (2023). Algorithms Were Supposed to Reduce Bias in Criminal Justice—Do They? Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/do-algorithms-reduce-bias-in-criminal-justice/
Hendrickx, V. (2025). The Efficiency Paradox of Judicial AI. MediaLaws. https://www.medialaws.eu/the-efficiency-paradox-of-judicial-ai/
Huhta, K., & Romppanen, S. (2023). Comparing Legal Disciplines as an Approach to Understanding the Role of Law in Decarbonizing Societies. Transnational Environmental Law, 12(3), 649-670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204710252300016X
Koellner, E. (2025). Black Box Justice? Legal Evidence, Digital Democracy, and the Risks of AI in Hyper-Specialized Courts (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5215622). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5215622
Kostruba, A., Haliantych, M., Iskra, S., & Dryshliuk, A. (2023). Legal Gaps: Concept, Content, Problems of the Role of Legal Doctrine in Overcoming them. Statute Law Review, 44(2), hmac016. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmac016
Krištofík, A. (2025). Bias in AI (Supported) Decision Making: Old Problems, New Technologies. 16(1). https://www.muni.cz/en/research/publications/2493618
Ley N° 31814, Ley que promueve el uso de la inteligencia artificial en favor del desarrollo económico y social del país 2 (2023). https://www.gob.pe/institucion/congreso-de-la-republica/normas-legales/4565760-31814
Ley N.° 32082, Ley que Dispone la Implementación Progresiva de la Transformación Digital en las Oficinas Consulares del Perú 2 (2024). https://www.gob.pe/institucion/congreso-de-la-republica/normas-legales/5723037-32082
Palmiotto, F. (2020). Regulating Algorithmic Opacity in Criminal Proceedings: An opportunity for the EU Legislator? [Faculty of Law Working Paper Series]. Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper. https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/sites/default/files/2023-03/palmiotto_-_maastricht_working_paper_series_-_regulating_algorithmic_opacity_copy.pdf
Pradi, A., & Loriatti, E. (2023). Comparative Law and Methodology Between Homogeneity and Complexity. Global Jurist, 23(3), 237-241. https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2023-0136
Rodà, A. (2025). The COMPAS case: An educational journey for explaining fairness in AI-based applications. AIMMES 2025, 1-9. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3961/paper4.pdf
Shevchuk, V., Morozova, T., Chornyi, H., Nehrebetskyi, V., & Slobodenіuk, I. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Proceedings: Criminalistics, Criminal Procedure and Psychology Issues. International Annals of Criminology, 63(3), 572-590. https://doi.org/10.1017/cri.2025.10090
Smart, S. (2025). Analyzing a Charter of Rights and Institutions to Tackle Surveillance Capitalism in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Latin America. Carr-Ryan Center Discussion Paper No. 2025-06. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2025-10/25_Smart_Sebastian.pdf
Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (2016). State v. Loomis. Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2016/2015ap000157-cr.html
UNODC. (2024). Transnational Organized Crime and the Convergence of Cyber-Enabled Fraud, Underground Banking and Technological Innovation in Southeast Asia: A Shifting Threat Landscape [Technical Policy Brief]. Copyright © 2024, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). https://www.unodc.org/roseap/uploads/documents/Publications/2024/TOC_Convergence_Report_2024.pdf