{"id":767,"date":"2026-06-29T08:00:50","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T14:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/baraibar.com.mx\/?p=767"},"modified":"2026-06-29T14:35:04","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T20:35:04","slug":"principio-de-inmediacion-penal-garantia-de-un-juicio-justo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/baraibar.com.mx\/en\/principio-de-inmediacion-penal-garantia-de-un-juicio-justo\/","title":{"rendered":"Principle of Immediacy in Criminal Proceedings: Guarantee of a Fair Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\u00a0Manuel Bar\u00e1ibar Tovar contributed to the construction of jurisprudence on the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings in the Mexican oral accusatory system.\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This principle is one of the cornerstones of the oral adversarial system established in Article 20 of the Constitution. Essentially, it requires that the judge who presided over the presentation of evidence in the oral trial be the same judge who issues the sentence. However, this is not always the case, and the procedural consequences of violating it are significant.<\/p>\n

Knowing the criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) on this principle is essential for defendants and their defenders in Mexico.<\/p>\n

Principle of immediacy in criminal law within the accusatory system<\/b><\/h2>\n

The principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings establishes that all hearings in the oral trial must be held before the judge, who cannot delegate their functions to another person. This guarantee ensures the judge's direct contact with the evidence: they hear statements from witnesses, experts, and the accused, observe their behavior, and form their conviction based on what they perceive during the hearing.<\/p>\n

Far from being a mere formality, this principle constitutes a substantive guarantee. Its purpose is to protect the defendant's right to be tried by the same judge who directly reviewed the evidence.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the adversarial oral system was created to correct the shortcomings of the inquisitorial model, in which the investigating judge rarely handed down the sentence. In this context, the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings strengthens judicial impartiality and the reliability of decisions.<\/p>\n

What do the Constitution and the National Code say about <\/b>principio de inmediaci\u00f3n penal?<\/b><\/h2>\n

Article 20 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes that criminal justice shall be accusatory and oral, governed by the principles of publicity, adversarial proceedings, concentration, continuity, and immediacy. Therefore, the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is not merely a jurisprudential criterion: it has constitutional status, and its violation can compromise the validity of the entire trial.<\/p>\n

For its part, the National Code of Criminal Procedure (CNPP) elaborates on this principle in Article 9, stating that no procedural action may be delegated. Additionally, Article 67 of the CNPP stipulates that when a judge is replaced, the actions previously taken must be repeated before the new judge.<\/p>\n

The jurisprudence of the SCJN interprets this mandate strictly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2696\ufe0f Do you have questions about your rights in a criminal trial? The lawyers at Bar\u00e1ibar & Asociados in Mexico City can guide you. Schedule your consultation today.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

How has the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) defined the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings?<\/b><\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has issued important rulings on the scope of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings. Specifically, it maintains that it would be pointless for the judge to hear the parties, take the defendant's statement, and question the witnesses if this is done in isolated instances or before different judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cThe principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is the difference between a genuine oral trial and a sham trial in the adversarial system. When the judge who hands down the sentence was not the one who heard the evidence, the decision loses its most fundamental procedural legitimacy. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has been clear on this point, and at Bar\u00e1ibar & Asociados we have successfully invoked it in cases where attempts were made to replace the judge after the evidence had been presented. My participation in shaping the legal precedent allowed me, with great pride, to contribute to the development of the interpretation that now protects this principle in the Mexican adversarial system.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Manuel Bar\u00e1ibar Tovar, Esq., Founding Partner, Bar\u00e1ibar & Associates<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) also determined that the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings operates as an essential procedural rule. This implies the presence of the judge throughout the entire oral trial hearing, from the presentation of evidence to the pronouncement of the sentence.<\/p>\n

The judge who hears the oral trial must be the same one who hands down the sentence.<\/b><\/h2>\n

The rule is clear: the judge presiding over the oral trial must issue the sentence.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) maintains that this requirement cannot be waived for reasons of administrative convenience or the workload of the Judiciary. If the judge is removed, reassigned, or replaced for any reason after the presentation of evidence has begun, the oral trial must be held again before the new judge.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings produces a specific procedural consequence: the nullity of the oral trial. This means that a guilty verdict issued by a judge who did not witness the presentation of evidence can be overturned through an appeal or a direct amparo proceeding.<\/p>\n

However, there is an important clarification that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has established. This principle cannot be absolutely demanded at all stages of the process. The reason is that the constitutional reform prioritized guaranteeing judicial impartiality: a judge who knows all the background information from the beginning could lose objectivity when issuing a ruling.<\/p>\n

When is the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings violated?<\/b><\/h2>\n
\"Tres<\/a>

Three main allegations of rape.<\/p><\/div>\n

The jurisprudence of the SCJN identifies three main assumptions of violation of the principle of criminal immediacy.<\/p>\n

First assumption.<\/strong> The judge who hands down the sentence is different from the one who presided over the presentation of evidence, without the evidence having been presented again before the new judge.<\/p>\n

Second assumption.<\/strong> The judge was not present at all the hearings of the oral trial, either because he delegated his presence to another official or because he was unjustifiably absent during the presentation of relevant evidence.<\/p>\n

Third assumption.<\/strong> There are excessive and unjustified interruptions between sessions of the oral trial that disrupt the concentration and continuity of the proceedings. In these cases, the judge loses a direct and complete understanding of the evidence.<\/p>\n

An oral trial divided into sessions widely separated from each other can compromise the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings, especially when the judge is replaced between sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Don't face criminal proceedings without specialized defense. At Bar\u00e1ibar & Asociados, we have experts in Criminal Law ready to defend your interests in Mexico City.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Procedural consequences: the nullity of the oral trial<\/b><\/h2>\n