The Constitution of Peru claims a law, which regulates the coordination of the indigenous justice with the national judicial system. But since 1993 when the Constitution was enacted, Congress has failed to fulfill this task. The article describes the problems resulting from this legal vacuum and substantiates the need for a law of intercultural coordination of the judiciaries. However, the content of the required law is controversial. In the discussion four currents of opinion can be determined. The end points are characterized, on the one hand, by the «minimalists», who want to reduce the legal competences of the communities to a minimum, and the «maximalists», on the other hand, who advocate unlimited competences of the indigenous judiciary. The article analyzes the arguments of the different currents of opinion and identifies the challenges of the legislative work.

The Constitution of Peru claims a law, which regulates the coordination of the indigenous justice with the national judicial system. But since 1993 when the Constitution was enacted, Congress has failed to fulfill this task. The article describes the problems resulting from this legal vacuum and substantiates the need for a law of intercultural coordination of the judiciaries. However, the content of the required law is controversial. In the discussion four currents of opinion can be determined. The end points are characterized, on the one hand, by the «minimalists», who want to reduce the legal competences of the communities to a minimum, and the «maximalists», on the other hand, who advocate unlimited competences of the indigenous judiciary. The article analyzes the arguments of the different currents of opinion and identifies the challenges of the legislative work.

The Constitution of Peru claims a law, which regulates the coordination of the indigenous justice with the national judicial system. But since 1993 when the Constitution was enacted, Congress has failed to fulfill this task. The article describes the problems resulting from this legal vacuum and substantiates the need for a law of intercultural coordination of the judiciaries. However, the content of the required law is controversial. In the discussion four currents of opinion can be determined. The end points are characterized, on the one hand, by the «minimalists», who want to reduce the legal competences of the communities to a minimum, and the «maximalists», on the other hand, who advocate unlimited competences of the indigenous judiciary. The article analyzes the arguments of the different currents of opinion and identifies the challenges of the legislative work.

With the implementation of the new criminal procedure code, profound changes have taken place in the criminal justice system therefore judge the procedural activity of the inquisitorial system changes to accommodate a judge's factual decision on the prosecution and may be supported by citizen judges, called jurors, who are not lawyers but ordinary citizens because they would have to do their capacity, their life experience and common sense to the deliberations and decisions of the court.

Con la aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Penal se han introducido cambios profundos en el sistema de justicia penal; por tanto, la actividad procesal del juez cambia del sistema inquisitivo a la de un juez con capacidad de decisión objetiva sobre la acusación, y puede recibir el apoyo de jueces ciudadanos, llamados escabinos, que no son abogados sino ciudadanos comunes porque tendrían que aportar su capacidad, su experiencia de vida y su sentido común a la deliberación y la toma de decisiones del tribunal.