The trial of Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia faces criticism for its prolongation.

The trial against former President Ollanta Humala and his wife, Nadine Heredia, for alleged illicit contributions from Odebrecht and other cases related to the financing of campaigns for the Nationalist Party is at a crucial stage, although it has been prolonged over time. The complexity of the case—which involves more than 300 witnesses and a vast amount of documentary evidence—has led to the judicial process, which officially began in February 2022, continuing without a clear date for a verdict. As the judges of the Third Collegiate Court of the Superior National Criminal Justice have been evaluating the evidence, it has become evident that the court's workload is a determining factor in the duration of the trial. Currently, the court can only hold one hearing per week, which significantly limits the progress of the process. This situation has raised criticisms and concerns within the judicial system regarding its efficiency and capacity to handle cases of such magnitude. Prosecutor Germán Juárez, from the special Lava Jato team, has argued that the effort made by the court is remarkable, given the volume of documents and testimonies to be assessed. However, he has also acknowledged that the time allocated to the trial is insufficient for a case of this magnitude. The shortage of judges dedicated exclusively to high-profile trials, such as that of Humala, has contributed to the backlog of pending cases in the judicial system. Since the formal opening of the trial was declared, initial arguments have been presented, and evidence, both documentary and testimonial, has been discussed. However, the emergence of new cases, such as the trial against Keiko Fujimori for the Cocktails Case, has further limited the court's capacity to focus on Humala's case, leading to hearings being held less frequently than desired. Throughout the process, various difficulties have arisen, including the inability to obtain statements from key witnesses, such as former Odebrecht executives. This situation has generated frustration for both the prosecution and the defenses, as the lack of testimonies may affect the final evaluation of the case. Despite the adversities, Prosecutor Juárez has expressed confidence that the trial could conclude in December of this year. Meanwhile, both Humala's and Heredia's lawyers have expressed their desire for the trial to come to a swift conclusion. However, the inclusion of additional evidence may prolong the process. The general expectation within the judiciary is that the trial will conclude before the end of the year, which is considered an ambitious goal given the complexity of the case. For their part, the defense attorneys have emphasized that the duration of the trial is not only due to the complexity of the case but also to the lack of a court dedicated exclusively to it. This aspect has been a topic of debate among legal experts, who argue that assigning judges to high-profile cases could have expedited judicial timelines. The situation of Humala's trial is emblematic of the broader issues facing the Peruvian judicial system. The combination of resource shortages, accumulated workload, and the need for a more efficient approach to oral litigation are recurring themes that require urgent attention. The need to reform the judicial system to make it more agile is a conversation that, while not new, has become more urgent as cases of corruption and money laundering accumulate in the country. Legal professionals have indicated that the outcomes of this trial could set an important precedent not only for Humala's case but also for other high-profile cases involving political figures and irregular campaign financing. The jurisprudence established could influence the interpretation of the law and the handling of similarly complex future cases. Consequently, as the trial progresses, the eyes of the country are on the court and the possibility that this judicial process, which has captured public attention since its inception, may finally reach a conclusion. The resolution of this case will not only impact the direct defendants but could also have broader repercussions on politics and the judicial system in Peru. Thus, justice is at stake not only for Humala and Heredia but also for the credibility of the system as a whole.