Quantum indemnity and evidentiary valuation in complaint procedures in the unipersonal criminal courts of an Amazonian region of Peru

This study analyzes the legal criteria applied by criminal judges of the Judicial District of Tarapoto, Peru, to determine the quantum of indemnity in criminal complaints for defamation and related offenses, highlighting argumentative gaps and a lack of jurisprudential uniformity. A qualitative approach with a grounded theory design was employed, based on interviews with judges and criminal lawyers, as well as an analysis of court files with final judgments issued between 2023 and 2024. The findings reveal that the absence of clear normative guidelines on evidentiary valuation and the quantification of moral damages has led to heterogeneous decisions, affecting judicial predictability and coherence. It was also found that judges rely on subjective criteria without standardized methodological justification, undermining the principle of reasoned judicial rulings. The study concludes that it is urgent to strengthen the technical training of justice operators and to promote legal reforms that establish objective parameters for determining civil reparations, inspired by national and international standards. This work contributes to the doctrinal and jurisprudential debate on the balance between judicial discretion and legal certainty, laying the groundwork for future research aimed at standardizing restorative criminal justice in Peru.