CURSO DE ACTUALIZACIÓN EN LITIGACIÓN ORAL CIVIL Y REFORMA PROCESAL

so

Hello Ignacio, good morning. Good morning, how are you? Hello Flor, how are you? Hello Flor, I'm fine. You're without a microphone, Flor. You're without a microphone. You're having breakfast, it seems. Well, let's wait a little bit because I see that there are few people still. Let's wait a little bit and we'll enter, okay? Is everything okay? Have you all tried? Everything is tested. Okay, okay. You, Flor?

I can't hear you, we can't hear you. Good morning, Analia. Activate the microphone, Flor, on the cell phone. Good morning. Can you hear me? Ignacia, can you hear me? Yes, Flor, yes. Perfect. Okay. Well, good morning to all of you. We're going to wait a little while. I don't know why my sound is reverberating. It's rebounding, Flor.

I would say, Flor, close the second one you have without camera, the sound, so it doesn't reboot. Well, then when I touch it, let's say, I start, what happens is that I have a problem with the audio, so I'm connected on both sides. Go, go, go. Can you hear me well there? Yes, there it doesn't reboot. Okay, okay. Well, let's wait a little bit for them to enter a little more and we start. Okay, great.

-

Buenos días, sí, muchas gracias. Lo que pasa que en el curso, figura que solamente es para administradores, por eso le preguntaba, porque bueno, uno no se puede comunicar vía WhatsApp. Y disculpe porque hablo una palabra y toso. Ah, ok, ok, ok, ok, Analia. Sí, en la facultad, Jackie, que es la encargada, está haciendo los registros de las personas que están en condiciones de rendir

I would have to talk to her to see that she is not included in the list. Well, very good, perfect, thank you. There is Jacqueline, she is answering in the chat. Good morning, Analia. What commission is it from? I am the coordinator of the CEC commission, for any doubts. The coordinator of the commission B is Adriana, you must communicate with her. Adriana, what is your last name, doctor?

Moreno. Ah, no la tengo yo a su contacto, por eso le preguntaba. Yo soy de la Comisión B. Estoy en el grupo de la Comisión B. Perfecto. Ahí lo busco entonces. Muchas gracias. De nada.

- No tengo sonido. - Ahí está. - Buen día. - Buenos días a todos. Vamos a dar inicio al último módulo del curso de actualización en mitigación oral civil y reforma procesal. Este módulo es de métodos autocompositivos. En la mañana de hoy contamos con la presencia del doctor Ignacio Noble,

He is a Doctor of Law Sciences, Doctor of Negotiation and Mediation, Postdoctor of Law, Lawyer, Notary, Law Professor, Licensed in Educational Management and Mediator, Magister in Magistrate and Judicial Law for the University of Australia, in Constitutional Justice and Human Rights for the University of Bologna and in Penal Mediation for the University of Valencia.

Es especialista en administración pública por la UNT, en derecho procesal por Cuba, en procesos civil, arbitraje y mediación por la Universidad de Salamanca, y en negociación y mediación por la Universidad Castilla-Lamarca.

Director of the Judicial Power of Tucumán, coordinator of the Research Council of the Faculty of Law, Politics and Social Sciences, a postgraduate and research professor, author and co-author of numerous books.

Good morning everyone. We also present Dr. María Florencia Gutiérrez, civil and commercial judge, professor of the Adjunct in Real Rights at the National University of Tucumán in the Faculty of Law, specialist in civil process law of the UBA, and heir to the training program of the magistrate of the Judicial School of Tucumán. We also have the participation of Dr. María José Pofe, who has already been presented at the beginning of the conference.

Good morning everyone. Thank you very much for being in this training space again. It is the last class of this diploma, so I thank you again for the persistence, the effort, the commitment and the responsibility assumed by the province of Catamarca in this training.

Sé también que están bastante ansiosos con el tema del examen, así que al final de la clase les voy a dar las pautas, la que se va a hacer el examen el fin de semana que viene.

Bueno, sin más, vamos a empezar entonces nuestra clase de hoy, que vamos a absorber y vamos a observar un trámite distinto dentro del proceso, que no va a ser la función jurisdiccional de los operadores judiciales, sino la conciliación.

And reconciliation as a process, where it will stop being that formal process that we had embedded in the process, will become a substantive function of the judge and the other judicial operators.

de manera de poder conocer, practicar y poner en valor algunas de las técnicas, lenguaje, límites propios que va a tener esta función conciliadora, que desde ya adelanto necesita una capacitación especializada de la cual muchos de nosotros no contamos.

Why? Because the judicial officer who initiates a reconciliation needs different tools than the ones he has to fail. Both in his role as a judge, as in his role as a lawyer, or in his role as a civil servant who assists, each one must have the necessary tools to overcome.

to know what they need for this reconciliation or the lawyers who can wait, both from the magistrate and from the party, and the officials, how to assist that judge in the initiation of this process of reconciliation.

As you know, both the Tucuman and the Catamarca process code have included this conciliation compositional method, so the doctors who accompany me today have already listened to their curricula, they have some

proven expertise in the field of reconciliation work, mediation and Dr. Florencia is one of the judges leading the process of reconciliation in Tucumán. So without further ado, we are going to start the presentation of this class by once again thanking you for your presence. Let's share. Let me know if you see the screen.

Para que demos inicio a la clase. A ver. ¿Está compartiendo? No. Todavía no. Veamos. No se comparte. A ver. Vamos a probar de nuevo. Ahí está. Ahí se ve. Ahí se ve. Vamos a iniciar. ¿La ven? ¿Ustedes la ven bien? Sí, perfecto.

Perfect. Well, then, let's start with clear concepts. And for that, the first thing is to define... Wait, it doesn't let me pass. Now, yes.

Now, yes, it is to define what we understand by conciliation. If I ask the auditorium, surely everyone will know what conciliating means as an alternative resolution method, but it is advisable to specify what are the components that integrate its concept. Clearly, it is an alternative resolution method, not an adversarial one of conflicts,

por el cual un tercero imparcial, dentro de un proceso judicial o fuera de él, facilita la comunicación entre las partes, pudiendo proponer fórmulas de avenimiento para alcanzar una solución que resulte mutuamente satisfactoria.

Clearly, from this definition, they are already giving themselves what are their essential parameters. What are they going to do? First, which is alternative, with which there is a lot of objection within the scope of mediation. Ignacio, I see him already sitting down because he stopped being so alternative, his consecration alternative.

obligatory within the process codes, many times, in addition to the faculty, it already speaks of another character. But hey, we'll keep this first look. So it's an alternative.

It is not an adversary because we are not going to have a winner and a loser, but we are going to try to make both parties win. It will be resolved by a third party, which in the case of its implementation in the process code is the judge, and it will tend to obtain mutually satisfactory results.

This conciliation is obviously marked within the concept of what the methods are that the legal operator can count on to resolve a conflict. And these methods are clearly distinguished in two parts, although they can be combined. The first are the non-adversarial methods, which are within what we are talking about now in this class,

-

Why does this distinction matter? Why? Because each method has a different logic and this logic will operate from the beginning in the conception of the judicial operator and in all its processing and extra-processing.

Because there will always be someone who wins and someone who loses. With the result of a sentence, we will always have someone who feels extremely grateful and someone who wants to throw us off the board, clearly. So those are the adversarial methods.

The collaborative method, unlike them, is a common solution, a solution that starts from the own parts, owners of the conflict, to address and where that third impartial will have to play a different role, from the internal and from the external in their presentations.

Y el juez en este juego de opciones va a tener que estar en su trabajo conciliador en ambos roles, como lo vamos a ver en el desarrollo de esta clase.

¿Qué cómo tenemos? Acuérdense que todo el marco de nuestra diplomatura está embarcada en la experiencia que nosotros como operadores de Tucumán venimos aportando a esta querida provincia solamente para intentar brindar herramientas que les puedan servir de útiles a ustedes en su proceso transformador, con la aclaración de que como han venido desarrollando en todas las presentaciones anteriores,

El Código de Catamarca ha mejorado su diseño original, que es el código de nuestra provincia de Tucumán, y justamente en estos temas y en todo lo que es la oralidad y las audiencias preliminarias de juicio, ha sido mucho más extensiva que nuestro modelo, con lo cual es altamente gratificante y esperamos que ustedes nos superen ampliamente en su implementación.

¿Cómo lo tenemos en Tucumán? En Tucumán tenemos, al igual que ustedes, unos primeros enfoques de conciliación en las dos audiencias, en la audiencia de conciliación y proveído de prueba y en la audiencia de producción y conclusión de las pruebas.

In both parts, the judge must start the hearing with an attempt to reconcile. And I speak and emphasize these words, attempt to reconcile, because you will see that they have, even from the...

.

But also, and as I said at the beginning, we also have the amendment that was consecrated in Article 132, for which at any time of the case, the judge could cite the parties to try to initiate a conciliation and propose formal formulas

conciliatory as long as with its legal bias, which is not to issue any formula or proposal that implies a pre-judgment. And there two principles come into play, which are procedural principles that we have to take into account, which is the first, the mandatory personal comparison of the parties and that of the magistrate under penalty of nullity.

So we have present magistrates, present parties, the magistrate's warning that in this process there is a conflict that can be addressed from another perspective, which is not the legal one, and that can sometimes be presented or observed at the beginning of the lawsuit. When the litis is already stuck, a first look arises where it says,

Attention, this conflict can be addressed from another side.

In practice, I have many years of exercise of the function of the judiciary, it has been few times that this tool of advent has been used. I would say that its star, its consecration, began when the protocol was transformed, it began with the Oral Protocol back in 2018 in Tucumán and began to be

the conciliation audiences with quantifiable results. So I can show you an example title so you can see how it was at the beginning. In a moment in 2018 to 2019, we had a rate of

conciliation in first audiences that oscillated between 11% and in second audiences between 8%. But I want you to see and observe on the table how this percentage has decreased in numbers as time has passed and today it is even more decreasing.

because in the latest statistical data obtained this week specifically, the result is that in this year, from August 2025 to May 2026, the reconciliation index has had a drop in the first hearing of 52% and in the second hearing of 47%. So,

This already forces us to look at an alert, to a trigger, to stop and reflect and understand what we have said throughout this Diplomacy, that the consecration in the procedural codes does not imply, in itself, an operativity in the norm, but it implies an internalization of judicial operators, but that also

deben contar con la capacitación suficiente como para poder

to exercise and use these tools. Of which I reiterate, we are not trained. Most judicial operators, both lawyers and magistrates, as well as officials, we have had to train outside the faculty. It is not a training that comes from the beginning and that in many parts, even you are going to see now in the course of this presentation,

the contribution of a colleague who has a lot of experience in reconciliation and mediation, who is very well known, our Miaide Ignacio, who is Dr. Nora Aguirre, who is the director of all the methods of reconciliation in the province of Neuquén, and where she is going to give you her experience. And I brought her as a contribution because

We have a second problem, and that is that in terms of audiovisual material, it is very difficult to count on practical experiences because the conciliation audiences are not recorded, with which there is a first trigger that later we are going to make some comments on this.

But not counting as audiovisual material, I have resorted to the experience of the contribution of Dr. Nora Aguirre, which has been very useful in the framework of a training course that we have also shared with Ignacio in the Judicial School of Tucumán. But well, going back to the numbers, the numbers contribute, the numbers evidence, the numbers alarm. So this fall is revealing a

urgent need for training. And what happens in Catamarca? What happens in its recent process code, its flaming process code? It is consecrated in Article 509, which has a very exhaustive consecration and where we are not going to stop much in this regime that is reflected in the picture.

Porque ustedes van a ver, inclusive, a partir de los colores que están puestos en la filmina, los distintos roles y funciones que tiene que tener el juez y los operadores en este régimen conciliatorio de la provincia de Catamarca.

They will have, like Tucumán, a first opportunity to try a reconciliation in the opportunities to call for an event that is consecrated on the 155th, in which the judge can obviously try, he will have the personal comparison of the parties and the judge, where he will obviously be able to try some process of reconciliation and that

Puede ser en cualquier estado de la causa, va a citar a audiencia, va a proponer a las partes algunas bases de arreglo. Y luego, obviamente, está la posibilidad de que durante todo el proceso, el juez se observa que es un conflicto que necesita un abordaje de otra manera o en otra dimensión para poder remitir a mediación.

In Tucumán, we have mediation as a judicial step prior to the initiation of the lawsuit in some of the processes. I understand that it is prejudicial. They have an institution, I think it's called CEGEMU or something like that,

¿Alguien me lo aclarifica? Bueno, no importa el nombre, pero sé que es un instituto que ustedes trabajan mucho sobre conciliación y sobre semejuca. Ahí está. Muchas gracias, Adrián.

It is an institution in which they work, all that is mostly family mediation, but I have seen in their publications that they also address the patrimonial aspects and that they have a high degree of arrangements. The latest publications speak of 70% of results favorable to mediation, so my congratulations to them.

So, going back to the process, at any stage, the judge can, here Noelia is clarifying to me, that in families it is mandatory, in civilians it is voluntary. Perfect, thank you very much, thank you very much. We have mandatory in the patrimonial processes, in some of the damages, yes, obviously, so we have it mandatory. Well, let's go back then.

In other words, beyond the fact that at any time of the process the judge can send to mediation, but we are going to focus on the conciliatory function of the judge. And the first, the first warning is that in 509, incision 1, you have a reinforced duty of conciliation.

Because the judge, he says, the article says, the first and the second part talk about the duty of the judge to conciliate totally or partially, explaining the advantages, guiding to consensual solutions, and in that case of obtaining an agreement, he will homologate in the same act.

Aclaro, esto es muy importante que ustedes tengan con referencia. Un momentito.

Ustedes pueden tener acuerdos totales o acuerdos parciales. Y eso es fundamental que el juez pueda determinar entonces en inicio, y ustedes tienen además el alegato de apertura, donde pueden las partes determinar qué hechos son no contradictorios y a partir de ahí ir despejando, desmenuzando, desmembrando algunos aspectos que pueden obtener

parciales, es decir, pueden no ser objeto de una conciliación algunos aspectos y otros sí, y obviamente van a tener que intervenir todas las partes que sean auxiliares del proceso, como son el Ministerio Público Fiscal o las Defensorías de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes o de Capacidad Restringida.

So, in that duty that the judge has and that is consecrated in Article 509, Article 2, he will evaluate the conflict and propitiate some alternative resolution means. And then, in the second hearing, in the hearing of judgment, Jacques changes the terminology because he says, the faculty will be able to urge the consideration, right?

I repeat, you have to be careful because many times, and in practice, talking with many of the first-instance judges,

I clarify that in the camera we also have results. Ignacio knows me, I am quite pro mediation and conciliation, so I have several agreements in the camera, but in the first instance, which is where it operates with all the virtuality, the first and second audience, you have the need to evaluate the conflict, you have to prepare, but you cannot stay with the famous question that is, is there a resolution?

Do you have any proposals? Does the insurance company have any proposals to offer the acting part? That is clearly not an attempt at reconciliation. Yes, but there is also another difference that I want to emphasize.

ustedes en el código procesal en la primera audiencia marcan el rol activo reforzado del juez es como para entiendo yo que ahí es para delimitar cuáles son los hechos contradichos y cuáles son los hechos que están confirmados y eso le da un manejo mejor al juez de cuáles son los aspectos en los que puede trabajar la conciliación pero la experiencia práctica nos habla que muchas veces la segunda audiencia donde en

we have had more possibilities for conciliation. But I leave that to Florencia, who will surely emphasize that. And then we have other provisions, such as the instrumental aspect of conciliation, where the need to manage those tests that can promote conciliation, such as the anticipated tests or the need

for example, to produce a mechanical forensic test if it is only material damage that has a damage and damage judgment, with which, having obtained that test, we can have better bases for that conciliation.

And also, we must bear in mind that always, if it is about the powerful who are involved, for example, by the legal people, they must have sufficient capacity to be able to reconcile. And a minor aspect is the economic effect in which you have enshrined that the costs are due to the order between those who reconcile, obviously, it is the opposite,

and the honorariums, in the honorariums by full trial. Another clarification, it is also very important, a contribution that I always suggest in this type of conversations for judges, and it is to try to motivate those trials that end with conciliations in shorter times with the honorarium regulations.

because then we also lower the stigma of the law professionals who are in litigation, with which they often object to the conciliatory effects of other methods of conflict resolution, because they maintain that it affects their economic interests. So, if we take this look, we value the cost of taxes and we value the regulation of an hourly rate in the face of this

to this extra work of the law enforcement officers, they must also be reflected in the regulations of the honorary. That is, Article 509 is for you the heart of the project.

Y les voy a leer concretamente para hacer acá la primera gran advertencia de cómo juega las partes y el juez en esta audiencia, en esta primera audiencia. Y donde dice, el juez asumirá un rol activo para propiciar la conciliación.

debe explicar a las partes las ventajas generales que se obtienen de poner fin al conflicto con un acuerdo logradas entre ellas y orientadas en la búsqueda de una solución común, procurando que arriben a una solución consensual. Como ven en los cuadritos que les puse abajo, las cuatro adjetivos definen la función del juez bajo esta norma. Debe ser un juez activo,

pedagogico, orientador y consensual. Y antes de entrar a algo que va a generar algunas discusiones y las vamos a conversar después,

I want to emphasize two issues that I think we need to work on. The first one is the need, I repeat, of sufficient training for judicial operators to be able to obtain all these adjectives that define their role. And the other big issue in this consecration is whether the mediation, reconciliation audiences should be recorded or not.

Ustedes en su articulado dicen, a pedido de parte, el juez evaluará la conveniencia de suspender la videograbación siempre que ello favorezca la comodidad y confianza en la negociación.

And here we have two situations. The situation for the judicial operators, the judge and the parties where the majority supports and implements that without a camera, without video recording, the parties can act with greater tranquility.

Y la otra parte que es la necesidad de control jurisdiccional de manera de que si alguien objeta la intervención de algún juez o de algún abogado en este proceso, carezca de material fílmico suficiente para evaluar esa prueba.

Con lo cual, una primera solución sería, esto vamos a conversarlo, después seguramente vamos a debatir con Florencia y con Ignacio, es que ese material sea grabado, pero no sea publicado, o sea, no sea expuesto en el soporte que tengan informático dentro del proceso. Entonces, vamos a retomar. Tenemos...

-

clearly produced by the sentence, as long as it is legally correct, but that sentence, as I warned, will not resolve the conflict. The parties will continue with many conflicts. And even more, if you observe the statistical index that we have of execution of sentence, it speaks of another alert. And on the other hand, the material resolution

que es cuando tiene las partes la convicción de que el conflicto terminó y esta convicción es solamente de las partes. Entonces, ¿cómo hacemos para obtener y para intervenir como conciliador en un proceso? Y vamos acá a escuchar a la doctora Aguirre unos minutos. Me dicen si la escuchan bien, por favor. ¿No se está cargando?

Can you hear me? No, the audio is not playing now. I think you need to activate the audio in the sharing screen thing. Let's see what happened. Let's see how it was. Luciano taught me, but I don't remember. Luciano, are you here? Yes, yes, here I am. How did we do it? In the little button next to the camera, in the present. There is a little button below that says share the audio of the computer or something like that.

We are in the camera. Nothing appears to me. Here it is. Stop sharing and share again, Professor. Stop presenting. Let's see. Yes. Let's see. I'll be back. Yes. There it is. This is sharing the audio. On full screen? Yes. Not all the screen? Yes. Okay. There we see. Let's see now. Not yet. There it appeared. And there it goes. There? Yes.

Yes, check the volume again in the video. Yes, there it is. It's going very slowly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- On the computer? - Yes. - Yes? - And it displays the little arrow that is there. - This one? - This one. - Let's see, Luciano, do you see it there? - Yes. It happens that the video itself has a low audio. - I hear it well. - Is the video in the power? - Yes. - Can you pass it, Luciano? - Yes. - Well, let's see, pass it to you. - I already download it and we check.

-

So,

So that's what Dr. Aguirre is explaining. And how she must translate that explanation to the parties to make them understand the role of the magistrate. From her language to the way of reaching the parties is different. There she is, doctor. Can you hear better there?

There it is paused, but when it was heard, it would be better. Well, we are not going to take any longer, so I'm going to leave you to this power, so you will be able to listen to the doctor Aguirre. Let's see, I'm going to share, let's share the screen again. Can't you, Luciano? Well, I'm going to share the screen again. Sorry, sorry.

Are we? Establecer un encuadre inicial. ¿Se puedo...? Sí, sí. Me parece fundamental como primera herramienta establecer un encuadre. Sí. Lo que pasa es que yo estaba escuchando el video. A ver. ¿Se escucha bien? Habría que ponerlo desde el inicio, me parece. Bien. A ver. A ver bien.

I think it is fundamental, as a first tool, to establish an initial framework that differentiates the moment in which this development is going to be promoted and to achieve a conciliation and that announces this change of role.

that within the framework the magistrate can say: "At this moment the conversation is going to develop in such a way, my spirit is to try to help you so that you find a consensus about this situation and there is no later to establish it in an adjudicative way."

The role of lawyers, this that Ignacio was saying, the role of lawyers in this stage will be more to advise and collaborate in the construction of a common solution than the one that you are used to observing, which is to defend each client or to uphold defensive arguments or counterattack accusations of counter-protection.

part, that is, if the magistrate himself makes a good outline of the situation, these lawyers, this that Ignacio said that they normally have this role of litigants, they are quickly forced to also change roles and offer collaboration because it is like what is expected of them is being explained and in some way they are being committed to that and on the other hand they are being

salvando en el sentido de aparecer con un rol totalmente colaborativo, mucho más tibio en la pelea sería, ¿no es cierto? Entonces, es como anunciar la técnica, anunciar el proceso, anunciar el cambio de rol del propio magistrado, anunciar el cambio de rol o la faceta distinta de los abogados,

y anunciar pequeñas reglas de comunicación que ordenen la conversación futura. Al igual que los que son mediadores y lo saben, que lo que se hace en un discurso de apertura de una mediación, o sea, el ejercicio de hablar por tú,

Well, perfect. That's where the doctor comes in explaining to us how the first presentation of the magistrate should be. Are you watching my new screen?

This reveals to us this duality that we have been distinguishing, that is, the judge in his role as judge and in his role as conciliator, united in the same person. Let's go to "hide". Okay, well then.

What should I do as a judge? When I intervene and act as a judge, obviously the classic identity of the professional, of the magistrate, is going to be to listen to what is relevant for the law, leaving aside the emotions. In fact, I try not to filter the emotions in these court hearings. Secondly,

hacer aquellas preguntas que necesite para resolver el caso de manera cerrada, y que induzca respuesta solamente apuntado hacia el aspecto jurídico, que es lo que tengo que resolver. Puedo orientar y asesorar a las partes en relación con sus derechos,

Now,

What should the judge do in his role as a conciliator? First, focus on the interests. We are going to take a look at what are the first approaches of the Harvard technique to work on this, which Ignacio will surely explain better, I'm just giving a screenshot, but he must, in his professional identity,

Ejercer estas destrezas. Primero, concentrarme en los intereses, no en las posiciones que declaran las partes. Porque yo quiero, porque yo soy el dueño, porque siempre viví acá, porque soy la víctima, porque él es el embistente. Esas son las posiciones, ¿sí?

Hablar con escucha activa, atendiendo a las dos percepciones, como escucho yo a las partes, que es lo que saco yo del lenguaje y del discurso de las partes.

Ofrecer un vínculo para el manejo de los desacuerdos. ¿Cómo piensa usted que podemos resolver? ¿Qué opciones cree usted que podemos tener? Y de la mano de ellos, guiar a las partes para que presenten sus propuestas constructivas. Evitar el intercambio improductivo y reencuadrar el conflicto. Y atender a las necesidades más que a las pretensiones manifiestas.

This leads us to the fact that we must know and use concrete tools. Oops, sorry, I was without a camera. Well, I know you don't want to see me, but well, I'll put the camera on anyway. Let's go to the concrete tools, which are those principles, stages, language and techniques that we must use in our role as a conciliator. First.

Volvemos entonces a los principios de Harvard, que son los fundamentales que debe tener incorporado cualquier conciliador, que es separe a las personas del problema, negocie en base a intereses, no a posiciones, genere opciones de beneficio mutuo y utilice conciliadores.

criterios objetivos. Ya vamos a desmembrar todo esto. Estos son los principios desarrollados por Fisher y Ury ya en el año 1981.

What do we see in a process of reconciliation? We see the famous image of the iceberg. What emerges, what is at the top, what is seen, what we observe at the beginning are the positions, that is, what people say they want, the way in which the satisfaction of their interests is visualized, which is what they are

pretending in this process. They are the positions, the visible, what is in the frame above the picture. Below, in the first place, in the first frame below what appears are the interests, what people really want, not what they say, as the Mayan say, but what they want are desires, fears, expectations,

I started a claim against other neighbors who are involved in a certain property in which I only have my house and I want to preserve my house. However, this property has a great extension, where the plaintiffs are also making their claim, but on that fund.

Not about what is my interest, which is to remain in that house, which is what appears as an interest in this judgment of claim, and that you will see clearly in the example of the orange that Ignacio is going to propose.

and above all, the needs, which is that whose consequence is indispensable so that the parties can address, solve this conflict with a state of well-being and be able to fix all the collateral issues so that the conflict can be resolved. This leads us

a distinguir en el proceso de conciliación cinco pasos que delimitan su estructura. Un primer paso que es aclarar cuál es mi función y misión, que es lo que les decía la doctora Aguirre. En este momento estoy actuando como juez conciliador y voy a escuchar a las partes y quiero hablar con las partes y quiero que me relaten y me cuenten cuál es su conflicto.

Eso en un marco de generación de confianza, haciendo un encuadre, diciendo ustedes están acá en un proceso donde el cual el señor fulano de tal pretende, sostiene, quiere tener para sí como dominio un inmueble que está dentro de este marco, a lo

cuáles los demandados se niegan porque consiste en que tienen partes sobre el inmueble que está encuadrado dentro de un reclamo jurídico que se llama reivindicación y que tiene tales reglas de juego, ¿sí? Y que va a ser resuelto de manera imparcial por mí en el caso de que ustedes no logren llegar a un acuerdo.

Sobre ese encuadre, ustedes tienen que darle la palabra a las partes para que ellos escuchen. Entonces, usted, señor actor, dice que en su demanda, ¿qué es lo que pretende? ¿Qué es lo que quiere? ¿Qué es lo que usted está buscando en este juicio? Entonces, se genera la escucha activa de la historia del conflicto.

so that from there, we can generate alternatives, objective criteria that can be presented to finally generate that agreement that we seek in the process. So, for this, we need a fundamental tool called the deconstruction of operators. And we listen again to Dr. Aguirre.

to see luciano there I share it well I always refer to this double dimension of working and working I think that what the magistrates have the most difficult in my experience is

is to unfold from the role and then the tools that we describe or that Ignacio was just developing as asking or as it could be a development of the listening tool, which seems that we all know how to listen, but we all know how to hear, we all know how to listen at a deeper level than listening, but not all of us know how to listen by focusing on ourselves.

to put that internal dialogue that we have that coexists with the dialogue that we are listening to. So we don't realize that we are listening, but at the same time that we listen, we are filtering with our own internal dialogue what we are listening to, making a judgment of value.

Creo que este descentramiento de uno mismo para centrarse en lo que dice el otro, en lo que quiere el otro, para poder preguntar para que el otro averigüe lo que quiere, es el desafío más grande que un magistrado tiene.

Because, in and of itself, those of us who have legal training as lawyers, we have, I always give the courses of basic training of mediation to lawyers, the years that I have trained so many lawyers. The first question I ask is, do you want to learn? Yes, we want to learn from this. Do you want to unlearn, unlearn, I tell you?

And some say to me, well, I don't know if so much, well, because it is as important as learning, being able to unlearn many things about the identity of lawyers and much more about the identity of judges that we have incorporated when we have done this training. Because it is the biggest challenge to focus on oneself to focus on the other. We are talking about a method of self-composition of interests.

What is supposed to happen? It is supposed that they realize what is happening to them, they warn what they really want, what, as Ignacio said, they could not say or did not even know how to say it because they were not clear what they really wanted.

The challenge is that they discover it and that once they discover it, they find these common areas where the juice and the skin of an orange can be reconciled, individualizing them as different and complementary elements. So, if what needs to be achieved from a reconciliation is that, that third, what can it do for that? What can it do?

Can he ask to find out why he is interested in things? No, because what interests him is irrelevant. Can he ask for constancy and someone to admit the guilt or responsibility? No, because nobody is going to judge him in this instance.

Can you ask to accuse or to promote an introspection in the way of later asking for forgiveness? No, because nobody cares about this. What that third party has to do, whatever it is, and even when he breathes, is something that serves the other to realize what happens to him and to approach his counterpart, to what was presented as his counterpart.

So, both when he asks, when he listens, when he reformulates, when he notes positively, when he summarizes, when he uses, in addition to these tools that Ignacio said, the procedural ones, when he promotes a private space for

to talk to one side and not to the other, which would be a procedural tool. Or when in his head this magistrate and this lawyer who acts as a conciliator has the conceptual theoretical tool of the theory of human communication, of the axioms of Baclav or of the theory of the observer. Whatever comes to his head as a theoretical framework, he has to put it at the service of those other two and not of himself.

So, not betraying yourself by doing interventions that have more to do with the satisfaction of one's own interests, of knowing, of understanding, of intervening well, of playing a good role, of legitimizing myself, of saving time, of reaching a conclusion, all that is useless. All that is my own interest and it does not lead to the reconciliation of others.

It does not lead to the reconciliation of the others to give advice and say you should take advantage of this moment you have, because if you do not agree, what happens to you later is worse, it will take longer, it will be more expensive for you, because this is actually a point of view of mine as a conciliator, as a judge, as a lawyer. But if they do not assimilate it in the same way, they fall into a broken sack.

So it seems to me that the challenge of training is all the time to approach these conceptual, procedural, communicational elements with the internalization of the place from which a conciliator intervenes.

So, that your theory, that your procedural resources, that your communication resources, your questions, your listening, your interventions, always guide as a north the reasoning of: "Does this work for them? Does this work for them? How does it work for them that I listen?"

that I listen to understand myself, is it useful for you that I understand? Yes, it is useful for you that I understand, because if I understand, surely what I do will help. Well, then it's fine, I ask to understand. Is it useful for you that I reformulate this aggression, that when someone says something in a way attributing the intention to the other, in a very aggressive way, I as a third party intervene and soften it?

Yes, it can help them because in one of those I convince them and they begin to look under a more benign light at what the other says. They begin to give room in listening to what the other said, because they can listen better. Is it useful for me to ask to have information that I betray and in reality I am collecting it for later when I have to issue a sentence?

or to make a judgment. That is, that internal work of not betraying me and not wanting to be a lawyer or judge of the parties. The role of conciliator is a role of helper, and in the role of helper we often betray ourselves, because there are many components in the help that is more an help to myself than to others.

They were burning lands in my province and in the province of Chubut. And there were many people concerned about helping. And there were many people concerned about helping so that the resources would reach the people affected by the fire. And there were many people concerned about helping to feel calm about having helped. They are different levels of the same action, but they give different results. So,

I think it has to work as an echo all the time, the internal question in a lawyer and magistrate counselor, is this useful? Is this at their service and the possibility of generating something useful for them for self-composition? Or do I do it for me? Or do I do it for me? Or do I do it so that it remains as it is?

This is very difficult, but it is very honest from the point of view of the possibility later, as I said, that everything is at service, because in the enumeration of procedural tools there is no "bostezar", there is no, right? No one studied in any mediation manual that it is good that the conciliator "bostezes". So one would say, can I "bostezar"?

Is it a tool to be a boaster? Do I boaster because I have a dream, I don't give up and I need to be a boaster? Or do I boaster because in the analogous language that Ignacio was talking about, subtly I'm telling you, you're taking too long? Well, well, well, Nora got there, it's very clear, very clear. Let's go back to our screen. So,

Clearly, what the judge says and how he says it in this audience is decisive. The role in which his self-knowledge is placed, as Mrs. Nora, the questions he formulates, the correct words are what enable negotiation. The incorrect ones close them and can configure prejudices.

So, as a contribution, as a contribution, let's make them see me again, as a contribution, there we are, as a contribution, what things should the judge say in an audience? What are safe phrases and what are forbidden phrases? What can he say? In similar cases, the ranges are between

tal y tal lado, o sea, causas similares, evitando la autorreferencia. No porque como yo dije en el antecedente tal, porque ya le estoy diciendo cómo voy a resolver. Entonces tengo que tratar de no ser referencial cuando tomo esas causas similares.

Sí.

Otra frase segura. Yo en menos veo tres caminos posibles. Nunca uno solo. Porque si decimos uno solo, ya estamos anticipando cómo vamos a juzgar. Y acuérdense que siempre todas estas frases son las que garantizan, digamos, la inmunidad del magistrado. Es la que van a evitar que sea luego denunciado por prejuzgamiento. Tercero.

In this situation or in this proposal that I am arranging for you, both sides assume process risks or both sides have process advantages. Always parity between what I give to one and what I give to the other, yes, one, another, that there is no ostensible asymmetry.

Fourth, what would you need to feel the conflict resolved? What tools, what things, what aspects could we consider here that would allow us to resolve the conflict? And the last one, in the face of all that baggage that we are presenting, do you want an intermediate room to be able to talk? Yes, these are safe phrases, phrases that you do not evidence any pre-judgment and you are talking about a conciliatory judge, which is what you cannot say.

en este rol de conciliador. Bueno, miren que voy a fallar a favor del actor, por lo cual yo les sugiero, les conviene arreglar. Oh, señor doctor letrado, por favor, hable con su cliente, porque si no, bueno, se va a tener las consecuencias.

Another one: "The compensation will range between 10 million in moral damage, 4 million in incapacity." You see, you are asking here in the lawsuit for 80 million, you see. Or "this inquiry is already irrefutable evidence of such and such thing." These forbidden, erased phrases cannot be considered, cannot be held by a conciliatory judge.

So, what can be concrete tools for the audience to propose without prejudging? First, talk about ranges, not numbers or results, ranges.

Causas humilares, como les decía, cómo se resolvió en Tental Auto, cómo resolvió la Corte, tuvo en cuenta estos aspectos, hay que mostrar el rango, el rango, dentro de qué rango nos estamos manejando, ¿sí? La Corte sostuvo que en virtud de esta prueba había tal situación, ¿sí? La Corte, si es primera instancia, la Cámara, no yo, no mis fallos anteriores.

Second, the options. How many options are there? At least three paths. Either we pay everything together, or we make a payment plan, or we make a partial recognition, the insurer absorbs and repeats the limit, we set it aside, but you have the authority to the insurer, after repeating against your insured, the symmetrical risks.

to the same parts, not one to the other. I can't tell the actor, look, you, actress, look, you're about to not try the causal link, ready, we liquidate it, that's it, the result. Or the defendant, you had an adverse desire, no, in the end we tell both of them, or we don't tell them, yes?

Y esto nos lleva a tres reglas que necesito que las incorporen como el padre nuestro o la guía que cada uno consigne en su mejor criterio para llevarse al despecho. Primero, la regla del espejo. Si no podés decir lo mismo ambas partes con la misma intensidad, no digas nada. Nada.

Cuando hables, cuando se está grabando, habla de manera que sepas que te está escuchando otra persona, que el audio lo puede escuchar la cámara mañana para resolver una cuestión de prejuzgamiento. Cuida tu lenguaje, cuida tu trato, cuida la simetría en el trato de las partes. Y cuando intentes dar un resultado, nunca hables de números, da un rango.

Miren, la cámara osciló entre estos valores, la aplicación de la fórmula Méndez-Boto dice que esta es la manera en que se puede calcular una indemnización, acuérdense que el fallo de la corte ya nacional, ya centrocritical,

en el fallo gripo, donde dijo que la utilización de las fórmulas no implica prejuicimiento, pero que no puede ser solamente la fórmula, el método de cuantificación de una indemnización, etcétera. O sea, siempre de por lo menos tres alternativas.

Y con esto quiero ya dejarlos hasta que hagamos el trabajo práctico que vamos a hacer al final con el doctor Ignacio Nobles. Bueno, hasta acá mi parte, muchas gracias y los dejo ya con el doctor Nobles. Bueno, muchísimas gracias María José.

It's a pleasure to hear you, it's a pleasure to hear Nora. So, well, they leave me with a very, very high bar. Let's see if we can be up to date. Well, also on my part, I want to thank Dr. María José and thank the organizers for inviting me to be with you today, on this last day.

I will try to complement what the doctor just told us, a little from the point of view of what tools we can use to be able to do what the magistrate should do, because the judicial operators should also do it. It is not just a task of the magistrates, we are talking about a system, that system is composed of different actors,

and in this also the work of lawyers is extremely important. So let's see how each one from their place can contribute to this result, which has to be always

to solve a conflict of the people who come to us to look for that solution. So let's see what are the different types of solutions that we can promote and what is needed for that solution to be an autocompositive solution. Well, I'm also going to present a presentation, let's see if... Mario, if you can take the presentation out, that way it becomes bigger.

Okay, I got it. So, share. There it should be. There it is, perfect. And I close it from here. Yes. So that you can see it in full screen, right? No, it's gone now. Okay. I'll turn it on again. Did you put the whole screen? Yes, when I click to share full screen, it's like it's gone. If you want, we share from there to show that you can see it. Okay.

I would like to start with a phrase that Dr. Posse mentioned, and I think it is one of these questions that make nothing work. How many times have you had a conciliation hearing and the first thing that the official tells you, whether it is the official who is in charge of the hearing or in your case, if it was the judge, this "do you have an agreement?"

Well, surely if people had an agreement, they would have already presented it for homologation. That is, if we are in that instance, the most likely thing is that we do not have an agreement. In that sense, the agreement is not something that magically appears from this question, but it is something that I have to build. That is, to understand that when judges transform from judges to judges,

have to have a different role. It is they who have to propitiate, in their role as conciliators, the possibility of an agreement. That is, the agreement is not given, the agreement is something that is built, and for that I have to do things. Why is this question very unfortunate? Well, the question is unfortunate first because it is a closed question.

Whenever you put a verb before a question, the question is answered by yes or no. That is, it is a question that does not allow elaboration beyond a negative or affirmative. So I tell them: "Do you want to go to such and such place? Yes or no. Do you need such and such thing? Yes or no. Do you have an agreement? Yes or no.

So, from this first question, I'm closing the possibility that people can work in a room voice. So, not to advance this first question, but as Dr. Posse and Nora said, what we have to do first, and we'll see it a little later, is to present the process, is to explain to the people who are there what it is about, what the rules are going to be,

What is it that is sought after? And take that time because many times that question of whether they have an agreement, that question, what it really hides is an intention or an interest of the person who formulates it. That is, when a judge or a judge says they have an agreement,

from some place, perhaps unconsciously, are closing the possibility of that agreement because what they think is: "I need this audience to advance, I don't want to waste time, I have to sign a lawsuit, I have to work on other sentences, or I have the next audience." So all this noise that judges often have and that is obviously absolutely understandable because there are a lot of causes that have to be solved,

appear at this moment in the audience and end up frustrating the audience. The numbers that Dr. Posse showed are very alarming numbers. There came a time when it was discussed whether conciliation could replace mediation as a prior and mandatory procedure. In this logic of whether we would have to duplicate self-composition procedures or whether conciliation was enough during the trial stage.

And in this, you see that according to the numbers, it shows that far from being able to substitute it, there is a strong need to work so that the conciliations have the effect they should have. When the whole system of orality began to be implemented, I remember back in 2018, and that they came from the nation, I remember Dr. Juan Pablo Marcet telling us what the orality process was like, he said that

The conciliation hearing was not just another moment, but the conciliation hearing was somehow what allowed you to sustain the system of orality. Because he said, there is a percentage of causes that necessarily have to be tried to be resolved before they reach the sentence, because what if it does not happen to you is that the process will be faster

but you will have the problem that everything will arrive faster to the court and then the problem of the sentence is not solved by someone. So if I can't solve it in the conciliation stage, the problem will be later in the neck of bottles that I will have when I have to solve. Another of the benefits of investing time in this conciliation audience has to do with

the fact of the resource. I mean, not only do I reach the end of the process and have a bottle neck, but since I have to dictate a sentence and the sentence gives one as a winner and not the other, it is most likely that I have a resource. That is to say, that takes me to a second instance.

It leads me to the process dilating, but also that we do not finish removing processes from the number of cases that we have pending to solve. So, solving before, sometimes having a little more time in the audience, allows us to save time in the production of the test, it allows us to save time in the sentence, in the resource, etc. So, this as a first question.

The second: there is a general process abuse of self-composition methods, which in fact you can see in the previous process codes of the reformed, where it was talked about abnormal modes of culmination of the process. I mean, this "anormal", as a qualifier, gives us a kind of

of the idea of ​​which place was granted to them by the methods of transaction, conciliation and others, because the normal thing is the dictation of sentences from that logic, and the abnormal thing is that it could be reached to an arrangement previously. This logic, fortunately, in the new codes is changing,

and it is called with some terms a little more beneficial for the methods that are special modes of process determination. And in this sense there is a very widespread phrase in the legal world, which is this of "it is better a bad agreement than a good judgment", right? That is, assuming that the agreement is necessarily going to be bad

but also to assume that the judgment is necessarily good. And the question is, when a judgment is finished, if one asks the parties if they are satisfied, of course the one who lost will not be satisfied.

And who won, maybe not, because you have to see how he won, in what time he won, if there is a resource that makes him not know yet if he won. So, if there is a certain possibility of execution of that sentence, or not, or it ends up being a sentence that cannot have an effect on the concreting of what had been resolved.

I like to replace this idea with the idea that it is better to have a good agreement and work to achieve a good agreement than a judgment that is perhaps unnecessary. For this I would like to bring this example that you heard before, which is the example of the orange, and I will do it, if God and technology accompany us, through a video.

Yes, we are going to stop sharing here and we are going to go here. You give me a little finger if you listen to me when I start. Can I tell you a case? Sure. Imagine that two people turn to you because they have a problem and it is that a client has given them an orange. An orange. A delicious orange that is no longer left and both want that orange. So.

How would you solve this conflict without harming either of them? There's only one orange, right? Only one. I'd split it in half and give half to each one. But both of them would be harmed. Because both of them want an orange, not half. Then what I say is a draw. Sure, but the winner takes an orange and the loser doesn't take anything. I could give one an orange and promise the other that the next one will be for him. But the promise of an orange is not the same as an orange.

It's not the same thing to get married than to promise you'll get married. Sure. It's not the same. It's impossible. What if I tell you there's a solution without any of us getting hurt? Any other idea? I'll give one an orange and the other something to compensate. What? I don't know, a Rolex, a horse, whatever. No. It's fine. But let's think about it. The orange one will get hurt because the other one has a Rolex.

And the Rolex one too. Because the other one has such a good orange that they had to buy it with a Rolex. José, what would you do? Ask them what they want the orange for. Good. And what would you get with that? Find out that one wants the skin to make a pie and the other one wants the pulp to make a juice. Come on, José. José, don't screw me.

Well, why do I like it so much

bring this example. This is an example that they do not invent in that video, but it comes directly from the theory of collaborative negotiation of the Harvard University and the traditional example speaks of two sisters who dispute an orange and that their mother does what from Solomon onwards would do any human being, which is to try to give the same to both and split the orange in the middle. So,

The problem of not understanding what was beyond wanting the orange

made each one actually get 50% of what they could get. If the mother had asked before what the orange was for, they would have realized that they could not give 50%, but 100% not of what they demanded, not of what they demanded, but of what they really needed.

So, the key to negotiation, conciliation, mediation, has nothing to do with a bad agreement. It has to do with being able to identify what are the needs and interests of the parties in order to try to give them the maximum of what they need or are interested in.

and to be able to see in the sense that it is not only one that will win, but that both parties receive a solution that is mutually satisfactory. But we can take the example even further, because maybe it is not just an orange, but we could say that the conflict could be resolved even without an orange. You will tell me, but how? Well, we could continue asking ourselves

Why did she want the orange? Because she wanted the orange juice. And why did she want the orange? Because she wanted to make an orange peel cake. If we go further, we can realize that the one who wanted the juice actually wanted to improve her health because it is likely that she would have been told that she had a low vitamin C level.

On the other hand, it could be that whoever made an orange shell cake wanted to give a gift to a loved one. For example, someone who, for their birthday when they were a child, or a girl, made this cake for them, and then as a symbolic element, "Now I give you this symbolic gesture on your birthday."

If that were the case, the conflict can be resolved even without an orange, because whoever needs to improve their health and have vitamin C could do it through a vitamin complex, and whoever wants to have a symbolic gesture with a loved one on their birthday can do it without an orange peel cake. Do you understand? So, what the theory of collaborative negotiation is really about is to understand

that there is a difference between what the parties say they want and what the parties really want or need. Derived from this, I would like us to work on a picture that teaches us the different approaches with which we can resolve a conflict. I think it's not being updated, right? They're not seeing it now. Yes, it's visible.

So, following this model that you are seeing on the screen, what you will observe when you arrive at a conciliation audience is that people can assume different roles.

A role can be the competitive role, yes? The all or nothing that is actually what is promoting the judicial process itself. A second behavior is a more evasive behavior,

maybe the parties refuse to speak, they look at their lawyers so that it is the lawyers who intervene, right? There is a lack of prominence that may have to do with a previous conversation with the lawyer, that is, you do not speak or speak the right and necessary, or be very punctual in what you say. Another role that can be complacent, right? Of some part that cannot sustain the interest that came to seek in the process,

and that, due to a relationship of power, ends up consenting to things that do not favor them. Compromise solutions, which are these solutions like the orange one when we cut it in the middle, this of taking the 50 and the 50 or some intermediate point,

and the option of collaborating, that is, when you warn that the parties arrive at the process with an intention of being able to build a solution with the other. What is going to be the attitude that will traditionally appear within a judicial process? Well, the competitive attitude. This attitude comes derived, in principle, from what is the structure of the procedure. If you start thinking

The judicial process always invites you to the litigation, unless it is in the conciliation stage. When we file the lawsuit, we have to prove that the other party is in need, that this means that they have to do something, in short, for us and that they have to be condemned.

The other, when he answers the lawsuit, tries to show me as guilty and to get rid of the guilt. There is the probatory part, where I have to believe what I said, in the case of the allegations. Everything leads me to have to contend with the other. In any case, thank you very much. In other words, everything I say has to be directed to convince the third party who is going to decide that I am right.

This means that the parties cannot assume a collaborative attitude during the course of the process and that, logically, when they reach the conciliation audience, they will not have a collaborative attitude in most of the processes. So, what is the conciliator's mission when he intervenes in the process?

transform the competitive attitude into a collaborative attitude in the best of cases and into a commitment attitude in the second of cases. That is, if I can reach a better level of collaboration, if I only reach a level of commitment, well, it is still better than a level of competence.

But I would like to stay in what is the concrete difference between a compromise solution and a collaboration solution. For that, I would like to take the example of the orange again. The compromise solution has to do with this giving in, with this saying, this winning-losing. A solution where I win something but I also lose something.

and that the other wins something but loses something. That is, what would be a conciliation from the point of view of a compromise solution

Well, a conciliation where the third party simply limits itself to trying to approximate numbers. That is, someone asks for a very high sum, someone offers a very low sum, and what we try to do is make these offers come closer, so that they reach a amount that is reasonable for both. This, which is the compromise solution,

In turn, it comes accompanied by a style of negotiation, which is distributive negotiation, which we will see next. Distributive negotiation starts with the idea that resources are scarce and can only be distributed.

In what way? Well, in different ways. Either I distribute everything for one and everything for the other, or I distribute in different parts, in different proportions. 50 and 50, 70 and 30, 20 and 80. But always in terms of: I must distribute, I must distribute. This is what was done with the orange at the beginning. I distribute 50 and 50%. Why do I say it's a win-lose?

Because in this logic, although I win 50% of the orange, I lose the other 50%. So this comes from the logic of this phrase of negotiation implies that each one has to give in part. Well, this logic is reasonable in the compromise solution and in the distributive negotiation, but it is not logical

in the collaborative or integrative negotiation that is applied later when solving the orange problem. That is, what does collaboration imply as something different from the compromise solution? It implies winning, it implies looking for solutions that are at the highest level of the satisfaction of the personal goal and the goal of the other and taking care of the relationship with the other.

as I do something for the other to satisfy their interest and the other does something for me to satisfy my interest, the relationship is also preserved. This is especially important in those conflicts that may have some need for maintaining the link to the future.

Think about how many conflicts derived, for example, from family businesses end with the dissolution of the company, when in reality they could have worked on collaborative solutions to be able to preserve the company and, in turn, satisfy the interests of each one of the parties.

In short, what is the task that the conciliator has to do? To accompany the parties so that they pass from a competitive, adversarial behavior, from the logic of winning-losing, to a logic of winning-winning.

and at least to a logic of this limited gain and limited loss of the compromise solution. Now then, following this line, what we are going to do is explain what are the differences between distributive and collaborative negotiation and how each of them works.

because the conciliator or the conciliator has to know how to negotiate distributively and collaboratively at different times of the negotiation. That is, it is not that the distributive negotiation is bad in itself, in many cases it is very important and it is what gives us the key to resolving the conflict, but also

Starting with a collaborative negotiation allows you to expand the number of interests at stake and have more resources to be able to reach a solution that could be a win-win solution. So, first we are going to see what distributive negotiation is about and how it works.

To make it easier for you to understand, it is the typical regatta. It is that regatta where someone says one value, the other says another, and they are trying to approach a consensus solution. Now, this does not just work in any way, but it has some elements that maybe we do not know and we use them intuitively.

What are those elements? Well, you are going to have part A and part B. You might think that part A is the acting part and part B is the demanded part. Each of the parts will have these three elements, which in turn the last one is subdivided into two more, which are the express position, the reserve position and the alternative. What is the express position? It is what the parts

They tell us they want. Generally, we have this in the written claim, which has a claim that is explicit, and then also in the written response of the claim. Then, in a negotiation,

it may be that those amounts that were expressed in the lawsuit could be modified. They could say: "Well, to get to a solution to the conflict, I can propose to lower the amount that I had said I asked for in the lawsuit and I can accept this amount." And the other could say: "Well, from what I said I was not going to fix for nothing, I can offer this amount."

That is what is called an "expressed position". The "expressed position" is the one that I explicitly give to the other party, it is what I tell them I want. However, a kind of axiom in distributive negotiation is that what I say, in truth, I know it is not the ultimate value that I can get. That is, if I ask you, and we open a little conversation here,

If you had to sell a car, your used car, would you publish it exactly to the value you want to achieve? No, says Noelia, a higher value, right? Well, why would you do that?

I think that when you want to sell something, you put a slightly higher price to be able to negotiate later and say, well, I accept what you are proposing to me because it is a lower price. Generally, that usually happens. Great. Well, this happens, thank you Carolina. I say, if I, sorry.

If I put the same price that I want to get, the most likely thing is that the other party wants to lower it, right? So I put a higher price so that if the other wants to lower me, then I am within the value that I really wanted to get. Now, what I do does not exempt us from having to decide

There is an open mic, Gustavo. Yes, you can turn it on. That doesn't exclude us from defining what the value we are going to put is going to be. Because if we go to a very high value, what happens to the other part? You say, I'm not interested in this because that's a value that

I'm not willing to pay. That is, he doesn't understand it as "Ah, it's an inflated value that the other tells me so that I can then pay." So, what is the risk of inflating this position a lot? That the other is not interested, that he doesn't see a negotiation possibility. So, when I set a value,

That value, although it can be higher than what I am willing to achieve in the end, it doesn't have to be so far away and it has to have an objective basis of why I am asking what I am asking for, which of course I will be able to modify later. Why is this done so well? Because in every negotiation there is something that is important, which is that the other feels that I am making a concession.

No one closes an agreement where they feel they are losing. At least they have to feel that both parties are making a reasonable concession. Now, let's go to the other side. If we go to the other side of who has to buy a car, would you offer exactly the value of the money you have available to buy it? Of course, below that value.

because we do the same logic, if I offer everything I am willing to pay for that car, then the other one is going to try to get me a higher price, which leaves me this money mattress to be able to make some greater offer and in its case see if that concession is well accepted by the other party and we can close the deal.

But here the same thing happens, if I make an offer that is very low, what the other is going to say is: "Oh no, it's an insult what you are offering me and since it is an insult what you are offering me, I will not be willing to negotiate." So also on the other hand, when I make the first offer, even if it is a lower offer, that offer has to be reasonable, so as not to scare the other party from the negotiation.

In both cases, this is what is known as the "expressed position", it is what I say to the other person that I want, even when there is what is called the "reserve position". The reserve position is what I keep, how far I consider it reasonable to be able to lower or raise that value. One of the big problems when we are going to negotiate is that we do not have in clear what our reserve position is.

We don't know how far we can go and that makes the negotiation often frustrated. One has to try to be very clear about what their reserve position is and try to find out what the reserve position is on the other side, to also know what that disposition is. So how does the distributive negotiation work? Well, I give an express position, the other gives me his,

and we are exchanging express positions because that maximum reserve position that I have is getting smaller and smaller every time. If I say that I am willing to sell my used car for 30 million and the other one tells me that he offers me 10 million, my next offer will be perhaps 28 million and the other 12 million and we will try to get closer.

That is, the reserve position is getting smaller and is being expressed in certain values. And the third element we have is the alternative, that is, what do I have outside of this negotiation? How can I satisfy my own need without reaching an agreement with this part? That is, if I have to acquire a vehicle because I have to work and I need it urgently,

I will have a need that will lead me to the fact that my alternatives are not so good. If I have to sell a car, resell it to the one I'm buying because my buyer is offering me more money, but only for this car, then my need will make my alternatives not so good. So, every negotiation also depends on knowing very well what alternatives I have outside the negotiation.

What is the most generally considered alternative in a judicial conciliation? The sentence. I mean, how good or how bad am I for that sentence?

because derived from this, perhaps my intention of reaching an agreement can be greater or it can be lower. That is, my intention of giving in to my expressed claim can be greater or less, depending on the moment of the process. Notice that

In legislation, conciliation is enabled in both hearings, but in the second one, there is already greater consideration about the evidence that is presented. So, when negotiating, it may be that I already have greater awareness of how this process could end in a sentence. So, if my alternative is very bad,

it is more likely that I will have more possibility to agree. If my alternative is very good, it is very likely that that possibility of agreeing can be reduced. This is the distributive negotiation. Why is it important that both lawyers and judges know how it works? Because I have to know that that first offer that the parties are making is surely not the last one.

I don't have to convince myself that if one says a very low amount and the other says a very high amount, that's where the conciliation ends. That's my starting point. I have to work as a conciliator those two values that are not yet touched. And we have to see if from our intervention those values are approximating. On the side of lawyers, we also have to contribute to see if these values can reach a point of agreement.

What is that point of agreement? It is what is called in negotiation the soup. It is not the soup with S, it is the soup with Z and refers to the area of possible agreement. The area of possible agreement is where the reserve positions of both parties are touched.

In the case of car sales, we said one value was 30 million, the other value was 10 million. Suppose that the reserve position of the seller, even when he says 30, is 25, and that the express position of the buyer, even when it is 10, in the reserve, as a maximum, is 20 million. Is there a possibility of agreement? Do the reserve positions touch any value or not?

We said the one who sells reaches up to 25 and the one who buys reaches up to 20. No, right? That is, there cannot be an agreement because the reserve positions do not coincide. That is, even when I try to stretch the value, that value will never reach. There is no coincidence in the area of possible agreement. On the other hand,

If the seller is willing to give up up to 20 million as a maximum and the buyer is willing to pay up to 25 million, is there a possible agreement zone? What would that zone be? Between what values? We said: the seller is willing to receive 20 million as a minimum value and the buyer is willing to pay 25 million as a maximum value.

What would be the possible agreement zone? Between what amounts? Exactly, between 20 and 25. Then we will see how much is left. It may be more than 20 or more than 25. That will depend on how the concessions are made in the negotiation. But there we do have a possible agreement zone. There are the reserve positions, right? Well, this is the distributive negotiation. Now let's see

What is needed to go towards a collaborative negotiation? Well, this is given by the theory of collaborative negotiation of the University of Harvard, which tells us that there are four principles that we have to observe to be able to bring the parties closer to a collaborative negotiation. The first has to do with separating people from the problem.

¿Qué implica separar a las personas del problema? Es trabajar en la relación con las partes.

If the parties are very angry with the counterpart and they are not willing to talk or negotiate, it is very difficult to carry out the conciliation. That is, the first thing I have to try to work on is the dialogue between the parties. It is the possibility that they trust that the other, if they make an agreement, will fulfill it with good faith.

Many times the conflict makes people have that relationship damaged and they don't even want to sit down to talk to the other party. So the first thing is to work on this issue. What does it do to the relationship with the parties and what does it really do to the problem that they have to solve? Secondly, negotiate based on interests and not on positions.

What are the interests? Well, in the case of the orange it is very clear, it is the "for what", what do I want to achieve with this that I am asking for or demanding?

What are the positions? The positions are the postures that the parties assume and that are very clearly identified in the judicial process because they are opposed. Where someone asks for a compensation, the other opposes. Where someone demands the fulfillment of a contract, the other opposes.

where someone demands a certain portion of a good, the other opposes. So the positions are very clear, but the question is what is behind those positions and what do the parties need to be able to reach an agreement. Third, it is important to use objective criteria.

What are the objective criteria? They are those that do not depend on the subjectivity of the parties. I'll give you an example: if we have a conflict due to damages derived from a moisture that appears on a wall that two neighbors share, the subjective criterion is to say: it is my neighbor's fault that he has broken pipes and they cause damage to my property.

The subjective criterion on the other hand is to say: "No, it's not my cane, it's your cane." So you have to fix it and you have to indemnify me for the damage that humidity is causing. What do you think would be a criterion that does not depend on the will of the parties, but rather an objective criterion that could be used in that conflict? Well, for example, a test, right?

Those elements do not resolve the conflict because even through some objective elements I can assume a different position. However, this can bring us closer to the possibility of resolving it in a negotiation. The other thing that Dr. Posse brought up is the fact that there is a mistake of the Court. What does the Court say in this type of conflict?

So I have some element that is objective that can help me to think if in this negotiation it is convenient for me to assume one position or another. And the last one is to generate mutual benefit options. In a conciliation, unlike what the adversary process is, I have to look for

that what solves the conflict not only solves it for me, but also for the other. In the logic of the judicial process, what we want is to force the other to do what we want him to do, because we ourselves cannot do it.

So, through a judicial process, we look for a third party to force another to pay us, force another to give us what we think they have to give us, force another to comply with a certain part of a contract. In the case of mutual benefit options generation, I also have to ask myself what I can do on the other side.

And that doesn't mean that in a case where we discuss the payment of a sum of money, it means that I have to think about how much I pay the other, but what can the other person want, what can they need? Well, as a company, they need this conflict not to be made public, not to be mediatized. As a health professional, in the event of bad practice,

Does that professional want this to be kept in reserve because this can generate a harm to other patients if they find out about this malpractice trial? So the option of mutual benefit has to do with being able to identify what the interests and needs of each part are and being able to approach a solution that is reasonable and satisfactory not for one but for both.

For that reason, also following the example given by Dr. Posse, we have the typical image of the iceberg that distinguishes between positions, interests and needs of each of the parts. And this image is important because what it tells us is that the position is what is on the surface, it is what we identify with ease, it is what the parts bring to the judgment.

The work of the conciliator has to do with looking at what is behind those positions and identifying the interests and needs. I will tell you a very brief case in this sense. A trial for damages and perjuries initiated by a lawyer who denounced a doctor for malpractice.

When the hearing was held, the process was identified as the lawyer had started the process because he had had a medical emergency that he had had to attend in a house that he had on weekends, in a place that had very few resources, and when he was attended, he noticed that the attention offered was of very poor quality.

and that he also noticed that the people who were going to that community, which was a community of low-income people, were poorly served. So what really made him start this procedure was the anger, that is, because these people who are in a condition of greater vulnerability are not given adequate treatment, health treatment,

and I, maybe, because I am a lawyer, have this possibility, I am going to initiate this process against the doctor and the clinic that treated me in a bad way. When the doctor and the lawyer arrive at the hearing, as an acting part, each of them gives the explanation of what had happened that day,

and the doctor at that time explained that they had had many difficulties, that this did not justify the bad attention, that she recognized that the attention had not been adequate, but that they had a lot of difficulties with the insumos and others. And well, she could explain it to him. The parts could be understood and look,

how one could think that the conflict really had to do with the perception of a sum of money that was clearly foreseen in the object of the process, which was a compensation, and ultimately, as a result of the conversations they had, they agreed that what they were really looking for was, on the one hand, at the level of interest,

an apology, a recognition that the treatment was not adequate. Secondly, a commitment of adequate attention for the people who live in that community. And thirdly, because the claim was economic and it also had to give some sense from the economic point of view, was to make a donation

to an animal protection association, which was an interest that they had shared in the framework of the conversations, that both were people interested in the well-being of animals.

What I mean is that many times when the position comes, which is what we look at, which is a claim of money for damages and damages, what it has behind are a series of needs and interests that many times differ truly from what one warns that they are asking expressly in a demand.

The difficulty that conciliation has, of course, has to do with the principle of congruence and how far we can move those margins, but since it is a consensual solution, the parties can, as long as the rights are available, reach an agreement that ends that dispute.

Now, not all interests are the same, but interests admit a classification according to whether they are common or different opposites. What are common interests? Common interests can be, for example, those that are shared even in a litigation situation. For example, I can have a litigation against a partner of my company

but we both agree that the interest we have is that the company continues forward and that it does not suffer any consequence as a result of this difference we have. The different interests are those that, as in the case of the orange, can be satisfied simultaneously without anyone having to give in to their interest. That is, I can want

that the company continues to work because that gives me contacts to achieve certain benefits, while the other may want the company to continue because it is their main means of living and then, as it works, it has better results. And the opposite interests are those that are excluded.

They are those that cannot be satisfied simultaneously and that are the ones that involve a distributive negotiation. That is, I can start by promoting a collaborative negotiation and I can then find opposite interests that I will have to negotiate through a distributive negotiation.

So what is it about? And now we are going to some conciliation tools that judges can use, because in the criminal field they also conciliate the prosecutors or the conciliation offices. Well, these tools are very different depending on what type of tool is used, if they are procedure tools, conceptual tools or communication tools.

It's hard to have all the tools, because there are so many, but at least I would like to work some of them with you. In that sense, there is a phrase that I think is very illustrative, and it says: "If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat every problem as if it were a nail." That is, to the extent that we have few tools,

to face a situation, then the results that we are going to get will surely be of lower quality. If, on the other hand, I have more tools, it is likely that I have greater possibilities of getting a better result. In this image you see two toolboxes.

One that is full and has many tools and the other that is empty. One could think, well, how nice it would be to have the toolbox that has a lot of tools. But if we don't know how to use it, it doesn't make much sense either. So, what I propose for today's class, since it is simply a class where we are going to start to know some of the elements of negotiation, is to incorporate some tools and know how to use them.

We have already incorporated some tools, for example, a conceptual tool that is to be able to distinguish what is a distributive business from a collaborative one. We incorporate the conceptual tool of knowing that the positions are different from the interests.

We also accompany a conceptual tool to be able to distinguish between the different interests: opposites, common and different. So let's see what other tools we could incorporate in this sense. When we talk about tools, sometimes we confuse it with the word "techniques", and in reality the tool responds to what tool? I ask a question, I make a paraphrase, I make an initial speech,

And the technique is how I do it. That is, if I'm going to ask, how am I going to ask? What kind of question am I going to ask? How am I going to formulate it? What results am I waiting for? What am I looking for with that question? How do I follow once I get that result?

We are going to see these two dimensions in each of the techniques, of the tools that we propose, that is, the "how", "what tool", but also the technique, that is, how to execute that tool and how to evaluate it. For that, there is a doctrine in the field of conflict resolution methods, which is Silvana Greco, and she says that the negotiation tools can be divided into three groups.

The first are the conceptual tools, which I referred to a moment ago. What are the conceptual tools? They are those that give us a theory that allows us to understand what we are going to look for in the conciliation process. This theory, for example, is the Harvard negotiation theory, which tells me: you have to distinguish between positions and interests.

You have to help the parties improve the relationship between them. You have to help the parties use objective criteria. You have to help the parties find mutually beneficial solutions. I mean, they are concepts that help me reach the audience and understand what my role is, what I have to look for in that audience.

The communication tools are those that are given in language and that I can use to be able to bring the parts closer to a possible agreement. We said it a moment ago: the questions, the paraphrasing, the summary, the legitimation, the initial discourse.

We are going to see some of them now, so that you have a certain idea of what you can use and how the parts are going to be in a very rigid position and not open to dialogue, to how one is generating that modification or that transformation in the relationship of the parts so that they can start thinking about solutions that can put an end to the dispute and resolve the conflict.

And the last ones, which are the ones we are going to start with, are the procedure ones. That is, what things in the process can work as a tool so that I can help the parties reach an agreement. And that is very clear in your legislation. You notice that in Article 509 it says: "The judge will assume an active role to promote reconciliation." And here he starts talking

of procedure tools. It must explain to the parties the general advantages that are obtained from ending the conflict with an agreement, achieving among them to guide them in the search for a common solution, seeking that they arrive at a consensus solution.

At the request of the judge, the judge will evaluate the convenience of the conciliation to be carried out without the public present or suspended in the video recording. All this has to do with procedure tools that are assigned in the norm itself. Now, if we follow the Harvard negotiation scheme, we will see that this is expressed at the first moment of the procedure, which is what is called "initial discourse".

What is the initial discourse? It is the presentation that the judge makes of the conciliation process, that makes of the rules that the conciliation has and also of the conduct rules, I mean, what is expected of the parties. That initial discourse then has these three elements.

Why is the presentation of the facilitator important in this case of the judge as the conciliator of the process? Because the parties do not have to know that the judge was a judge before and now he is a conciliator judge. And what is the difference? That is, the parties continue to look at the judge as the one who decides and this is still something true. So, who must clarify what his role is at that time of the process is the judge.

Of course, the lawyers who accompany the parties should also provide that information so that the parties reach the process knowing that in that conciliation the judge will function as a conciliator and that if there is no agreement, that judge will of course continue in the role of judgment.

This makes a big difference with the mediation process, because in the mediation process one knows that what he speaks with that third party will not have in any way an incidence in the process because it will not be known. In the case of conciliation, it should not have any incidence, but of course the parties know that at the end of the hearing of the conciliation, the judge will make a decision. So, that decision

I mean, conciliation does not weaken it, but it is an opportunity for the parties to reappropriate the process and see if they can find a solution before going to a sentence. In that presentation, the judge has to tell you: "At this moment I am going to accompany you, I am going to try to help you, to see if you can resolve the conflict."

It is a way to give you back that possibility and that, of course, if there is no agreement, I have the obligation to dictate a sentence. But how much better is if that decision comes from you? In this case, I am going to make myself available to work with you and your lawyers to see if there is any possibility that you will reach an agreement.

In addition, it explains to them what the rules of reconciliation are. This "what you say at this moment will not have an impact on my decision" because what we are looking for now is not to believe in facts, not to convince the third party about something that happened. What we are trying to do at this moment is to look for if there are possibilities of solving the conflict.

Everything else we will do in the other stages of the process, but at this moment what we are called to do is to see if there is a possibility of a solution. In that sense, it is also important that the judge explicitly explain the rules of conduct. It is important to participate in the parties, to listen to the parties, that the parties can express what their needs and interests are.

that there are no grievances, that there are no disqualifications, that the behavior is collaborative. Clarify that at that moment what they try to credit so that one has it in mind in the sentence does not make sense, that is, those behaviors are the ones that one has to try to avoid and favor behaviors that have to do with the cooperation of the parties.

In a second moment, what will happen is that the parties will take the initiative of being able to say how they see the conflict, what possibilities of solution they find, and to be able to express what their interests are.

In that sense, the conflict could be reformulated or rethought of how it was proposed at the beginning, from the initial position, towards what are the true interests that have been expressed during the audience. This gives rise to the generation of options and, eventually, to proposals that can be given by the end of the process, with agreement or without agreement.

I mean, the important thing, beyond what is generally sought, is the agreement, has to do with having given the parties the possibility of having a procedure where dialogue is done, where a mutual solution is sought, where the way of dealing with each other is different from the way they had been dealing with each other in the other stages of the procedure.

And that is a function that the judge and also the professionals who accompany the pauses have. After this procedure tool, we are going to see some tools that are communication tools. The first of them, and I would tell you the most important in any negotiation, is active listening. One could think that active listening simply means paying attention to what is being said.

However, in a very old study it was discovered that of the totality of the language of what is to be transmitted, in reality only 7% is credited to the verbal language, 38% to the paraverbal language, which are the tone, the inflections, the cadence with which one says what he says, and 55%

of the message that is given by non-verbal language. That is, both judges and lawyers who participate in the process have to be very attentive to everything that is said and what is not said, and to what is said, in what way it is being said. Because I have to have a reading

and I have to know if there is even a contradiction between what is said and how it is said. For example, you ask me: "How are you?" I say: "Well, there is a contradiction between what I say in the verbal language and what I am truly expressing in my non-verbal and paraverbal language." If you had to believe how I am,

What would you pay more attention to? What I said specifically or how I said it? Well, how I said it. So, active listening means that I don't just have to be listening to what the parts are saying, but I have to be looking very carefully at what is happening in the audience. I have to try to interpret

this that happens beyond what is being expressed. Of course, this is not something that I will take into account for a sentence, but what I hear, I do it to be able to intervene in the audience and to be able to accompany the parties towards the solution of the conflict. There, Flor, I don't know if you wanted to comment on something.

Hello Ignacio, can you hear me? Perfect. Sorry, I was just changing devices because I had a problem with the audio in the other one that was, let's say, coupled, but no, no, it was that, maybe you saw something, I was changing, let's say, the device to be able to... I was listening, thank you. Okay, okay. Well, then, in this active listening, in negotiation, the most important thing is

the information that is being shared to be able to understand where that negotiation is going. So, we have to, as judges or as lawyers, be very attentive to what the parties are sharing during the course of the process. And for that there are some tips that I think are relevant and that have to do with how to listen actively.

I think it's not happening right now. I'm going to share it again so that... No, Ignacio, it got stuck there. Okay, give me two seconds so I can share it again so you can see it. The last one that appeared was number 18.

Of course. Well, there you should be seeing the active listening one, I don't know if it's already showing up. Yes, yes. Well, great. So, some tips that I think can be interesting when it comes to working with active listening. First, it's not that I'm thinking what I have to answer later. Listening actively from the role of the conciliation is to pay full attention to what the speaker is saying.

I'm not thinking about whether I agree or not, what I'm going to ask later. I'm attending to everything that is happening at that moment in the audience. I allow the parts to express themselves. This is the moment of the audience where the parts have to express themselves. Of course we have a hurry.

But it is important that the parties appropriate the process and that, of course, with our guide and regulating the participation times, give a place for the parties to have this space of protagonism. Not to advance in what the parties are going to say, nor permanently interrupt them. And this is very important: to listen not only to the verbal language, but also to the non-verbal language.

of how they say what they say, or if they are not saying anything, what they are doing. That is, when the other speaks, the other is in agreement, patient, or is very annoying. I say, these are information that we use when it comes to being able to conduct a conciliation. And the last thing is that I don't just listen, but I also have to show listening.

How do I show the parts that I'm interested in what they say? So, what things... Nora Aguirre explained it a bit, she says: "If I boast..." Well, boasting is not a tool that we work with, but I say: "Boasting is giving information to someone else." The information is: "I'm not interested in what you're saying." "I'm bored or I want it to end." So, I have to be very aware in the audience

of what I'm showing so that the parties have confidence or not in me. If I assume a judge role, judge, surely my place will be a place of, from the hierarchy. I mean, if I want to show, listen from, I'm collaborating with you, I have to assume a different position. From how I look at the parties to how I treat them.

The other tool that I consider to be interesting for you is from the affirmative language the paraphrase. I mean, what is the affirmative language? When we say things, we describe things, unlike the interrogative language, which is when we ask.

In affirmative language, paraphrasing is a very important tool because it synthesizes, organizes and neutralizes that narrative of the parts that could be heard in a negative way by the other. That is, if there is a disqualification,

If there is a negative reference to the other side, one can work that story by neutralizing, reformulating that story. That is, if it says: because it is

It's a person you can't trust because he scams everyone, etc. So, you would have to see how he does with that story so that the other party doesn't take it as an insult and is not willing to continue talking. So, I could say: "So, according to what you are expressing, there were differences between you in the past that made the trust you had at the time not be as it is today."

What could we do to work on that trust again? So, something that is presented as negative, I reformulate it, but also later I complement it with a question that helps us to have a vision for the future. That is, this happened this way, well, what is necessary today to be able to have a different result in the future?

Summary is also a very important affirmative language tool because it allows us to frame the process at all times. That is, we already listened to the parts, the parts already said what they needed, now we need to see if there is any possibility of proposal according to what you have expressed. So we summarize what happened and we frame the procedure for a next stage.

And the mirror tool is when you return exactly to the part what he said in the same way. So the intention you have is that the part itself can be heard in the impact that had that he said from the voice of a third person.

So, many of the things we say, when we say them, we don't understand the impact they have, but when a third person says it and they give it back, we can even correct: "No, well, actually what I meant to say is this thing, I expressed myself wrongly". So, we give that possibility to the parties that they can correct. And the last two tools that I would like to share with you, and we are already giving way to Dr. Florencia, is: the legitimation.

Although the role of the conciliator is neutral, we have the possibility of working in favor of both parties without seeing our neutrality affected. This is used by the tool of legitimation or recognition, which seeks to enhance the relationship between the parties through the identification of some positive aspects that would have emerged within the framework of the conciliation.

For example, this recognition can be done from the subjective, that is, in the person or in the people who intervene, or in some objective aspect that has to do with the conduct displayed by those parts during the reconciliation. I could say, for example, I thank you

because I really warn you that both have had a very collaborative posture during this conciliation. What am I doing? I'm telling the parties something positive, I'm telling them: "You have shown collaboration", but I'm also telling them: "I hope this continues this way", I'm valuing it as something positive.

Or, for example, I could say, if it weren't for the person, what collaborators have been, because maybe they weren't collaborators in the audience, I can take some behavior from the parties and I can enhance it.

They were not collaborative, but at some point, the parties had some intervention that could have favored the procedure. That is, at some point, one of them could have said, "Well, I make this offer and I'm not going to make another offer."

Even when it is presented as something negative, I could say, well, but how important it is to have been able to start thinking about some offer, right? I mean, it's a starting point, then I don't close to that being the last offer, but we can enhance this, that is, how good that there is a first offer from where we can start working, right? So,

There always has to be what is called the victory speech in a negotiation. What is the victory speech? It is that the parties are aware that a favorable result can be achieved. The speech of defeat is usually the one that they reach the process with, that is, there will be no agreement. Close the audience of consideration because here we are not going to agree. The victory speech has to do with showing the parties the advances they are making.

For example, maybe you are not noticing it, but I have noticed that you have made many advances since the beginning of the conciliation audience. Before you could not agree even in this aspect. Now, in the course of the audience, you have been able to dialogue, you have been able to think about some proposals. So I encourage you to follow that path, always showing the parties that can reach that result.

And the last one, of the tools I would like to share with you, has to do with interrogative language, which is a lot of what the counselor does, because if it is assumed that what he wants to give is a space for the protagonism of the parts, there is no better tool than the question to be able to give that protagonism. The questions, in their two major classifications, are distinguished between closed questions and open questions.

Closed questions are the ones that close the possibility of being able to give an answer beyond a yes or no or an answer with a single word that is very concrete. In the case of open questions, on the other hand, the idea is that the parts can be expressed with greater freedom.

The way to ask closed questions generally has to do with when we use at the beginning of the question: when, how much, which, or when, as I was saying, we start with a verb. All this necessarily closes the answer. I don't know, how much does such amount ask? When did the accident happen? That day.

Is it willing to fix it? Yes or no? It's always a closed question. The closed question in a conciliation is not the one that should be used the most because the closed question closes the answer, makes people position themselves more. So what you have to look for, in reality, is to favor the dialogue and for that you have to use open questions in most cases.

How do open questions are built? Generally starting with "what" or "how". I ask: "How much are you asking for? How would you like this conflict to be resolved?" So I'm not necessarily taking a lot. What would you need to be able to end this conflict? But within open questions, there are different open questions that we can ask.

An open question that is used a lot to start the conciliation audience are the exploratory open questions. The exploratory open questions are the ones that seek to know part of what

the interests of those people who are intervening in the consideration audience. So, I could ask you a very broad question, right? This I did a moment ago. What would you need to consider this problem solved? It's a very broad question. So, if the case, for example, talks about a medical need, I could say, what treatment

would be necessary to solve your leg problem. It's an open question too, but it's not as open as the previous one. In the way I made it, I was narrowing the range or the margin in which that person could give me an answer. So, many times we say, "Oh, because the part started talking about a lot of things." Well, you also have to ask yourself if we formulate well

that question, because maybe if I make it very broad, then the possibility of the part is also wider. If I narrow the question, even if it is open, it decreases that range or that possibility that the part extends too much over time. Then we have circular questions, which are those that can link more than one element and that generate a displacement in another. That is, I can ask a person to say:

If you were the other way around, what would you think would be a reasonable offer? I'm not asking you what a reasonable offer is for you. What I'm looking for is for you to think from the other side. So, this tool allows you to achieve a certain plasticity in the person who answers it, because it has to be transferred

and be able to think from another person, another place, another time, a hypothetical situation. Hypothetical questions are those that use the conditional. I don't know, for example, someone says: "We are not going to reach an agreement, let's continue with the offer of the tests." I can say it as a hypothetical question. And what would happen if we could actually approach an agreement in this audience?

"Oh, well, yes, if we could approximate it, then yes, but if not, I don't want to waste time." So, I say, the hypothetical question places in a situation of possibility, where someone is closed to something happening. And then we have the reflexive questions, which are the ones that use certain verbs that lead people to have to connect with a deeper answer. That is, if I asked you, for example, "What did you feel

when they were hired as lawyers? That's a reflexive question because first of all, you can't answer it immediately. The first thing you have to do is think about that situation. What happened when I got hired? And then, how did I feel? And once I think about this, I can only give an answer.

So, the reflexive questions use the verbs "to feel", "to think", "to reflect", "to believe", and this makes the parts connect with some deeper aspect in order to be able to answer them. And finally, well, the re-presentation question is the one that transforms

the understanding of the conflict from a dispute based on positions to a dispute based on interests. How can we make sure that such and such person can receive the treatment he needs to improve

their health condition, while the company has the disposition to have the necessary resources to make that need effective. We mutualize the solution, but we ask the parties how that could or could not be possible.

Well, to not go beyond time and to be able to get to the break, which you must already be quite tired, we already saw some tools as an example of use in the conciliation audience, and to close with a phrase that says: imposing justice is easy. Well, it's not that easy actually, but building it with humanity is the real challenge. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you very much Ignacio, excellent, excellent talk. Well, let's take a 10-minute break, if you like, before we start with Dr. Gutierrez, so we can move our legs a little and have a coffee. We'll be back in 10 minutes, thank you. Well, let's start again. Well, can you hear me, María José?

Yes, Florece, it's perfect. Well, I changed the device, that's why another name appeared there too, which was my husband's, let's say, the computer. There it is, you can see and hear you. Well, then we are about to start, yes? Yes, yes. Well, good morning to all of you who are present here. Thank you for this invitation.

María José has asked me. Well, it's very funny, we are in an area outside of the work. The doctor invites me. Well, I didn't hesitate for a second because the truth is that, well, you may have heard when they introduced me. I'm going to be honest, I don't have a training in what is mediation itself, some specialization and others.

but within a training program of the judicial school we had a mediation module that I really liked a lot.

But there is something that, well, I have listened attentively to Dr. Noble too, I have reviewed many concepts, Ignacio, Dr. María José too, I was, moreover, if you have seen me in the camera taking some notes, I am training here too, let's say, I am here to share experiences and I have also taken advantage of María José to train me, right?

Very good, very good. Well, first of all, I am a person convinced of conciliation. I think that is point number one that I want to highlight here, to be convinced. And why am I convinced of conciliation? I am convinced because I always remember when I was in the first year of college,

In Introduction to Law, Dr. Cosio, who is from Tucumán, taught us, Noel, of course, from his books, what is law? Law is conduct in intersubjective interference. That is, the first thing we have to think about when we approach a process, when we are made, at the time I was in litigation, let's say, for many years,

is to think that there is always a person behind a conflict. If we talk about intersubjective behavior, we are talking about subjects. The person, when they get to the legal study, when they get to the process, they come with a conflict. Many times that conflict

It can be a conflict in terms of where we come to ask for money, compensation for an accident. As María José said, there is a conflict in a claim, there is a conflict with a consumer, there is a societal conflict, there is a family conflict. Well, conflicts can be diverse if we think about each one

of the different forums in which the competition is distributed, or how it has been distributed in some way, let's say, it is multiple, but there is always a conflict. This conflict, as the doctor said, the code, I was also listening attentively to the Catamarca Code, the Process Code, Article 509, which the doctor accepted, our articles of the Code too,

which are articles that have to be interpreted in the context of what is sought, right? What do we seek? What do we seek from the role that we occupy as legal operators? We can occupy the role of magistrate, magistrate, which is my case, the case of Dr. María José,

Dr. Noble has a very important role. He is leading the mediation center. In Tucumán, we have cases that are subject to the mediation that is prior and mandatory, where there is a group of lawyers who have specialized in mediation and who are on a list to be raffled and try to work in a prior way on that conflict between the parties. And the role of the lawyer, which also seems to me to be a role that is fundamental,

the role of those who also intervene in the process. Let's not forget that in many processes there are children, teenagers, people with disabilities, where they also assume a complementary role, in most cases the defense of the child, where it is also a collaborator, let's say a legal collaborator,

And why do I highlight all these figures? Because mediation, reconciliation, and conciliation would not be possible, the part of course, it would not be possible if all the legal operators were not, let's say, on the same line. That is, in this of saying what we are for. A while ago, a couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity that the Tukumán Court gave us,

to participate in a talk that was also held by Dr. Posse, I don't know, Ignacio, if you could participate, where there was a doctor, Dr. Grajalo, talking about legal argumentation, a very interesting topic.

But from each course I go to, I have the particularity of taking things from others, not to appropriate them, but because they are issues that shoot me, shoot me, shoot me to think in other terms. And Dr. Graja said, well, let's see, if we ask what we are for, the answers could be many, right?

Well, we are here to dictate a sentence, we are here to resolve conflict, we are here to, well, to get so many sentences in a certain period, but we really are here, and he used something that says, so that society is a little more breathable, yes.

Society is made up of people, who are the people who interact, and they are those people where Dr. Cosio says, well, they are in intersubjective interference. We relate at all times in our lives, we relate in our families, in our work, we relate when we go shopping, we relate when we are in an audience, we relate in the legal study, in short, we are in a permanent relationship.

For me, particularly in reconciliation, when the parties are going to reconcile, let's say the instances that our codes provide for reconciliation, you have to prepare, to train, as the doctor said, it is fundamental and prepare in each of the conflicts where we are going to address a reconciliation.

I'm going to share while I talk a slide that I have prepared about questions that for me have been shocking questions and tell you that that is the idea that Dr. Posse proposed to me.

-

and know, let's say, what I can find, audiences where I have found myself, where the object that facilitated me, let's say, or that facilitated the reconciliation of the parts was a turtle. Yes, you will tell me, well, this doctor that you have brought here to talk to us, I don't know if she is out of reality. Well, no, I'm going to tell you the story of the audience where the turtle was the element of the reconciliation, the turtle as an animal, right?

We had another audience, I had another audience where the element that mobilized the parts surprised me myself too. They were some bandages, some gauzes, bandages, I don't know if you know everything about the bandages that are used for, there, the people who play football, the girls, to bandage their legs, bandages appeared within the framework of an audience.

a lawyer who ended up bandaged in his legs, I'm going to tell you about that audience. We also had an audience that was on December 30, where generally at the disposal of the office organization, we know that they enter the permit of the fair permit,

where the payment orders are in urgent need. So, generally, regarding the organization of the internal office, we don't set an audience. But that day, the audience was needed, on December 30th,

I was knocked on the office door. Physically, we are organized in a building and the social management office that assists us is in another building that has a public attention monitor. We judges don't have that monitor that existed before.

So, well, the door is knocked, the door is opened and we hear sometimes there is a citizen who is lost, let's say in the corridor, he is looking for the citizen's attention table. There is another one who looks for the judge 2 and I am 15. There is another person who wants to know where the legalization office is. Well, in this case the door was knocked to implore an audience. The day was hit on December 29, the audience had to be 30, there was no other possibility.

Well, that audience is an audience that also had a lot of trouble. But I'll tell you one thing, it's very important. It's a question... Sorry, Luis Avellaneda, the microphone is open. Now yes, Florencia. Now you are without a microphone, Florencia. I can't hear you. There it is. Well, we have talked about several issues.

We have talked about time, we have talked about disposition, we have talked about conviction, being convinced, because as Dr. María José said, that is, our code provides two instances, two instances that I sincerely respect, let's say, those instances.

but we also have an article 132 and even if the article is not there, we have to know the judges and the judges who are the directors of the process, so we can understand, we can call for a reconciliation at any time. It happened to me before yesterday that the parties finished alleging

They did it by Zoom, in an ordinary process, and after they finished alleging, I asked the audience to pause the video recording and I made a new attempt, let's say, of conciliation between the parties, where I noticed the parts a little more mobilized. We didn't get to conciliate, but well, the attempt was put by, I think it was the fourth time where I tried to conciliate in that audience.

So, while we're talking, I'm going to tell you some practical questions and highlight, let's say, what is what, well, some questions that may also be jocose. I tell you that after the hearings, that is also another issue. Also, the legal operators are meat and bones, yes?

The judge is also excited, the judge is a judge, lawyers can also get excited.

They can suffer, they can laugh, they can cry. And I tell you that there are many audiences who have really mobilized me, the results of the audiences have mobilized me and I found situations in which I must confess that they were out of the notebook. So there is also a bit of the fact of knowing in advance, not only knowing the file,

Saber que podemos encontrar en las constituciones que se encuentran fuera del libreto, la tortuga nunca estuvo en el libreto, nunca estuvo en el expediente, las vendas nunca estuvieron en el libreto, nunca estuvieron en el expediente, que llorara una relatora en la audiencia tampoco estuvo en el libreto, tampoco estuvo en el expediente, y tampoco la relatora sabía que iba a llorar en ese momento, tampoco sabíamos que íbamos a tener que mandar a comprar

to be able to give breakfast to someone who was in a very moved audience and who also had not had breakfast because people bring their problems and bring their reality, let's say, to the courts, yes? We have to know that. And also, well, this is what I just remembered, María José, to know at what point the parties can be taken to a process, right? It happened to me when I had the legal study before

to enter the legislature, to work with some situations of the people who arrived because they wanted to divorce, after talking and talking about everything that involves a divorce lawsuit and others, I told many clients that they needed to work on the emotional issue of divorce because they were not in a position to address a judicial process.

So this is also part of what Dr. Grajal left me to say, when society becomes breathable. And society becomes breathable when the person who addresses a conflict takes a solution from the conflict that really leaves her alone. In terms of whether she won or not, whether she gave up or not, or whether that is what came to seek justice.

I also had the opportunity at some point to listen to someone who does judicial communication, Mr. Kevin Lehmann, you must know him, some may have heard him, and say, when really, what justice for one and what justice for another, yes? Because a person can go to a judicial process

can even win in the process, win in terms of the resolution in its point one says: to take place the compensation action of damage and damage and condemn the defendant who carries 200 million pesos

But well, that may not be justice, you know why? Because in that case, the person who came is a person who lost a child in an accident. So how much is a child worth? I wonder here, let's say, does anyone know how much a child is worth? Does a child have a price? Losing a child, how much, how much would we be concerned?

No, right? No, says Erika here, thank you Erika, it has no price, right? Never, says another person. So that sentence of 200 million will have been the justice of the case for the father, the mother who have resorted, let's say, to the jurisdictional body and not, let's say, well.

If you'll allow me a second, we'll start sharing the slide with these striking questions and this kind of reflection. We'll be sharing each of these cases, the turtle, the band. Oh, I forgot about the case of the shelter of five boys, I mean, boys who ran away, they were first to the courts.

because they had been denied enrollment for their last years. You know what the last year means for a teenager in a school. The last year does not mean finishing school, but it means the return tour, it means the return dinner, it means the school week, it means a lot of things, yes? So, well, that was also a hearing that...

The audience was four hours long, of course, we were cutting it with coffee and water. In the middle of that audience, things also happen to us. For example, it happens that before entering the audience, I sit in the library, I collect some books, those old books were some books from Lafayette that I had bought at a fair that I had gone to Buenos Aires.

I had to get up in the book, it was summer, because this happened in November, it was for the other year, my whole white jacket was stained, so the first thing they did when those people entered, I couldn't solve it, the audience came in at 2 in the afternoon, the center was closed, so I had to receive them in that situation.

.

How we interacted. Well, it was very strong to see myself with all that stained white jacket, let's say, talking about things that were important, but well, I had them in my eyes. So at the time I asked them for a second and well, I went to some offices that are with you, mine, and there I found a jacket.

I didn't have anything to stick with, but I took off the white jacket and it was a way to keep the concentration in the jacket, which was really shocking, it was a mess for me. From now on, what I do is have a white shirt hanging in the office, which, well, if it happens, I change the shirt and with that I solve it. Well, give me a second. The auditorium says you were also aware of what happened on December 30th.

What happened on December 30? Well, I'm going to tell you. On December 30, it was a very strong hearing. On December 30, it was not on December 30, on December 29, the previous day, or 29, 28, the office door, which are those old glass doors,

And how is the distribution of the office? Well, there are the three newsstands ahead who attend to that door when it is knocked, who does not have attention from the public. They knock on the door and I listen, I work with the door always open, my door, it is an internal door, but always open to the newsstands, and I hear that they say, yes, well, I am the doctor of such and such, I need to speak urgently with the doctor.

Well, then the doctor, the girls, well, let's see if the doctor can attend them. When I hear the word urgent, I go straight to the office and without the girls asking me and I tell them, doctor, well, yes, what is the urgent thing that the doctor has? Because if he really comes to knock on the door on the 28th, 29th, urgent, I need urgent, he tells me, an audience.

I tell them, "Doctor, the urgent thing is tomorrow, because we are already with the fair, yes, tomorrow." But they tell me about the management office and so on, that there is no place anymore and so on. Well, it was true, the agenda of the audience was closed.

But well, he tells me in four parts, a delicate question, that is, the possibility of a compensation agreement was lost, where the lawyer himself had happened that his own clients, who were the mother of a child who had passed away, the father of a child who had passed away, among them did not agree

how the compensation was going to be distributed, that the insurance company was willing to pay. So, even the lawyer himself was surprised. If we judges are surprised by what can happen, the lawyer was also sponsoring both parties. It is assumed that everything will be agreed, but he was in that situation.

So I tell them, "Well, Dr. De Medo II," I communicate with the management office, the director, I tell them, "Tomorrow there will be an audience here, doctor, there is no place, tomorrow there will be an audience," I tell them, "I'm going to receive them, they will be here at 8 in the morning." Well, we call on the phone, this also has to do with what María José was saying a little bit,

that both parties are represented, that we provide the same for both parties, a little formality. We are also scared of the formalities of the process or the pre-judgment.

Don't be scared of those things. We are for something else. At that time, there was no time to notify, as the code sends it, that we take out the decree, that we sign. Well, I enable, I tell the secretary, call by phone, sit down, that you have communicated with all the parties. You can come tomorrow, if everyone is going to come tomorrow. We open the office on December 30th.

Yes. Where is the audience going to be? In some room? No, no, in no room. It will be in my office. The audience is not very large, but hey, we put together several chairs and that's where the audience was produced. I'm going to tell you later what happened in that audience. Let's organize a little bit with the slide so that we can. I can organize myself to leave because, well, I'm excited about it and I'm still with

We have until 4 pm, Florencia. No, no, no, the boys will want to... Apart from that, in Catamarca they also sleep in the siesta like us. I know Catamarca, I have relatives in Catamarca, I really like the rodeo, so I have to go back to Catamarca, I was there last year. Can you see the slide? Is it there or not? Not yet. No, it's not out yet. Not yet?

No, no, no, no.

No. Let's see, stop sharing. Let's share. Let's see, wait. Luciano, are you there? Yes. Let's see, Luciano, if you help me. You have to put the little tab that says all the windows, all the screens. Yes, I'm here, right? Wait. I'm going here to share, share screen. Yes. Yes? I have it in the file.

Wait a second. I have it in the downloads to the archive. First open it. Yes, wait for me. No, this is not. Wait a second, right? Luciano, do you want me to send it to you? Can you share it from there? Yes. Call me and I'll guide you. I don't know why I can't upload it to the archive.

Yes, Luciano. Well, if you want, while Dr. Gutiérrez is looking at her screen capture, you can write in the chat the questions you want to formulate, because we are going to be kind of short on time. So we can review them. This silenced. Yes. Do you have it there, Luciano? Yes. Can you? There it is. Well, do you see it? Can you see it?

Yes, they are putting their finger that yes, this... Yes, it's visible, Florencia, it's visible. It's visible, can you see me too? Yes. There we have the title that... There we are, let's go with the first one.

Well, the slide represents here how we can make a more breathable society. This has a little to do with this alternative method of conflict resolution, which we will return to the concepts that Ignacio has already given, which María José also spoke about.

The issue of cooperative negotiation, that is, how the parties can resolve or bring the conflict where they themselves can be protagonists.

In the hearings, I know that they are in the framework of Article 132, which is our one from the coming, or in the hearing that is prior, in the first one that foresees our code, in the second. It is also important, I take back, María José, what you said, to present the parties, what is the role that we have, make them feel part of this process, that is, they bring their conflicts,

and see what I was saying, what is the true interest, which is what Ignacio also spoke about here, to say, well, what was the interest or where was the interest of this example that he puts on the orange, yes? Not always what is brought, let's say, in terms of the object of the demand, which would be strictly procedural, is really the interest that it brings in the parts.

María José mentioned the claim. Well, is she really interested in the claim of all the property or what interests her is within all that property that can have a surface, let's say, wide, if this is the place or that space where she lives, let's say in that house, which would be a point where we would be interested, let's say, or where we could as

as judges or judges or as operators, the lawyer also, if pushing, as who would say, the parties to be able to reach a conciliation that in some way, let's say, will resolve the conflict of both parties, because the conflict does not only have the actor's part, it also has the part demanded, that is, the conflict that is brought

is in terms of parties, not in terms of who claims that he feels, let's say, in the bench, like who says of accused, who also faces a conflict, and in fact that conflict can often incorporate a third conflict. Why? Because the third conflict that can be, let's say, incorporated

the conflict of the Reconciliation. The Reconciliation incorporates a new conflict into the process. That's why we talk about this, about seeing or delimiting what the real conflict is that the party brings as a person in this process, a human person or a legal person, of course. There's also something that Ignacio said that I found very interesting.

Many times, let's say, the interest that a legal person has in terms, for example, is that they are not mediatized. So we can focus on saying, well, this company is not interested in, let's say, its main conflict here is not to see how much money it is going to put or not to put to reward this consumer who went to buy a fridge and it turns out that the fridge

I just plugged it in, it didn't work. So, where can I really focus on conciliation? I focus on conciliation in terms of how much money I'm going to put the focus on so that the actor receives the part. The actor's part, what do they want? To recover the money, let's say,

that he has put in that article and he doesn't want it to be repaired in the article, he wants something new. And the client will say, well, we are a company

that has its name, we want to continue selling, we don't want to be called a needle, a refrigerator. We want this not to be mediatized. And we don't want to get to a sentence where, in addition to being condemned to this, that we are going to have to return, perhaps by law 242.40, the judge forces us to publish this sentence in a large circulation diary, which is what law 242.40 asks for.

So, as legal operators, as judges, we have two issues that are transcendent to handle within that audience. We are not going to stop at the amount, but we are also going to stop at the fact that perhaps the other party is looking for their interest and that this is not mediated. So that's what we say when we look for interests. Let's go to the other slide.

There you see a fire, right? Quite illustrative, the fire, the hammer. We finish the sentence and if a sentence imposes a legal decision, yes, it always has to impose a legal decision that can be that surely the part that wins in terms of sentence when we say to take place, yes, the actor wins or when we say to reject, the defendant wins, yes? That sentence

imposes a legal decision, it has to be argued, motivated, reasoned. Article 3 of the National Civil and Commercial Code. Yes, and it can, let's say, if it's a first instance, surely the part that doesn't like this sentence, that is not satisfied with this sentence, is going to go to the Chamber. Yes, that's where Dr. María José is. They get to the Chamber.

And the conflict has not ended, because the sentence, the first-degree judge may have ended this conflict, but the conflict has not really ended. Well, it imposes a legal decision, but it rarely says extinguish the fire of the underlying conflict. Of course, because this puts us back in the situation of saying,

Well, in terms of claims, the principle of congruence, the principle of the device, the evidence that has been provided, many times we know that judges have to make an assessment of the evidence that has been provided to the process, and it may be that many processes are won or lost due to the process strategies that have been used, due to the issues that have been ventilated within that process.

But in the end, many times the main issue, let's say, or that decision, the fire of the conflict,

It has not been finished, it continues where? It continues, let's say, in the chamber, the fire is transferred from the first instance, another fire is thrown and the chamber continues. And if the conflict does not end in the chamber, in a narrower way, because we know that the hunting is, let's say, a route that has many requirements to be able to enter, the fire continues to be revived, that is, in the recursive instances the fire continues to be revived. So, if our objective is this,

that I have raised at the beginning, that is, social peace. So, also, when we are going to think in terms of consideration, we have to think about what happens the day after the failure. What happens the day after in a claim action when I took place in an action, a game, a thing takes place in a claim action? What is the main effect? Order the launch.

In that launch, I can have girls, I can have boys, teenagers, vulnerable people. It may happen that the day after, where an indemnification of a process that has taken three years, two years, the processes now go fast with this new process of morality,

The insurance company that had to pay, that was condemned at cost and that is the only one that could pay in the process, a person who has had an incapacity, who has been proven to have an incapacity of 90%, enters into liquidation, cannot pay.

the conflict has ended? No. That sentence, let's say, that took place, had the objective, let's say, which is to resolve the conflict and no. It had the purpose, let's say, to get to this issue of giving social peace and no, no, because it aggravated, it aggravated worse. So we are saying that in terms of reconciliation,

It is also important to think about what happens after the sentence is dictated. So when I approach the first face-to-face with the parties, I introduce myself, I tell the parties, the parties often don't know what's coming.

This is also important, the role of the lawyer, that is, we come to resolve your conflict and in this process the judge's role is not only to be shown as the one who is going to dictate the sentence, that is, the judge's role is someone who can collaborate with us so that we can conclude this process with some situation of reconciliation, some situation of settlement.

That's how I usually introduce myself to the audience. I introduce myself with my name, with my last name, in which court I explain to them that the trial is in this court, that I am going to lead the process, I am going to direct it, because the process is also important, the direction of the process, right? And in this I always ask for collaboration from the lawyers. It is important that the lawyers collaborate in the direction of the process because there is a principle that we have in our code, which is the principle of processed cooperation.

who cooperate in the process, cooperate the parties, cooperate the lawyers, cooperate the judicial assistants, cooperate the defense, the defender or the defender in the complementary role, many parties that cooperate. Here I am going to introduce, I tell you last week also, first audience. An audience, also a claim for compensation for damage and harm, a traffic accident, the insurance company is presented,

The defender was present because we were talking about that complementary role. And well, we had the situation of the lettering that the truth was in the position of the litigation. Before starting the first hearing, the demand was already answered, an ordinary process, the litigation was already stuck.

The insurance company, well, I ask the lawyer and I tell him, look, doctor, there is a need to highlight the compensation. We have a child here in this process who is the one who is going to receive the compensation and he is about to approach the fair.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that I have all the time available. I had three audiences later, but it doesn't matter. I have the time available to listen to you. What is your proposal? Do you have any proposals? We would be interested to know what the insurance company has thought.

Well, yes, doctor, we have a proposal, the only thing we need is time. What time do they need? Why do they need time? Because it is necessary that the other party listens.

And well, because the denunciation of the crime is done, but we want to make a proposal and in the acting part, the only thing I wanted was to get to the provider of the tests. I wanted the provider of the tests, the provider of the tests. So, well, in that, say, doctor, I will provide the tests in case it is necessary. You stay calm, the fair is coming. Yes, the fair is coming, doctor. Coincidentally, because the fair is coming.

highlight a point that was important. I tell you, insurance companies, they don't have legal fairs, their administrative time is running out. So maybe the insurance company can come up with a proposal before us in this process, because in July they will be able to continue working and we won't. There I warned that time was a fundamental factor to be able to move the parts of this issue of

It was the acting part itself that wanted to close this possibility of conciliation. So, after 45 minutes, the first audience had not yet started, it was possible to make the parties understand that we were going to go through a fourth intermediate and I achieved the commitment of the insurance part of a time.

Because the time also, this question of coming to the process and that the parties do not have time, yes, we are going to make a proposal, the proposal, we were not talking about numbers, here Dr. María José Posse also talked about this, about talking about numbers, because there could be an anticipation that we as judges give a number.

It's complex, but I always try to make the part put the number, that the part puts the number, yes? Because if we are going to pass a fourth intermediate, the fourth intermediate is not a question that is perceived as something dilatory, it has to be real. The fourth intermediate has to have a time. When, doctor? When is the proposal going to come? In seven days. Well, doctor.

with a hand agenda. If this day we are talking about the day, let's suppose July 3rd. Well, on July 3rd, Doctor, apart from all this, you will have a proposal here in five days. And you know that in five days I am going to approve the test, but in five days no test will be able to be produced. Yes, I have been making prejudices, no, because I have not told you that I was not going to approve the test. I have said that in five days, yes, of the tests that I was going to approve, of which I did not tell you which ones, yes, all the tests offered were already there, yes.

I was already on the line, so I don't know what tests they were with teachers or not. I told him I was showing him that there was no gain in losing this opportunity. Yes, before the fair, a number proposal was brought in that had to be serious, because in that too

not only the party is the one that has to intervene, but the defender was present, where I brought the defender to somehow accompany the position. In this conciliatory process, I always link it with adding up, and when we add up, we add up positively.

Mr. Defender, what do you think? What do you think about us waiting for a proposal? And the insurance company doctor, look doctor, as a judge I am also making a commitment. We are all making a commitment because the role of the judge who is the director is the role of the judge or judge who sits at the table. Let's move on with the slide.

Well, this is what we are going to skip, the logic of everything or nothing, Maria José spoke a little bit, Dr. Noble also spoke about it, that is, the lawsuit is conceived as the battlefield. Let's see who wins here, who is the one who brings the most evidence, who is the lawyer who best litigates, who is the lawyer who best dilates, who is the lawyer who best raises the voice in the audience, yes?

That is a concept, let's say, of process. But let's go back, it is the process that, in short,

It doesn't help, let's say, for the part to come out of the process, let's say, unvictory. I imagine this as boxing. I don't like watching boxing. My dad liked boxing a lot. This thing of saying, well, let's see, let's see who hits more and who is the one who ends up falling. And how many minutes do we give him to get up so that the round continues, right? Because, look, in the process, how many minutes do we give him for the caducity? Well, we play with the caducity. It is a processing institute, of course, right?

And well, let's see how we continue in the process so that it rises, so that it falls. On the other hand, this is to say, let's disarm the battlefield. Is it possible that the process is not a battlefield? Yes, it is possible. Dr. Noble has already said it, Dr. Posse has said it. And cooperating is not showing the weak parts, but showing the possibilities of resources that we have so that this can be composed.

I almost stop myself, which is what Dr. María José asked me to do, to go and see, let's count, and I confess, I was a little scared, I say, María José, I'm not going to be able to talk much about mediation in conceptual terms, I say, as Dr. Noble has done, Dr. Noble, I always annoy Dr. Noble with, we are very collaborative within the judicial power, we help each other, I annoy Dr. Noble when I have some doubts, right? And Dr. Noble is very generous with his knowledge.

And I had this question, Dr. Maria José tells me, we want to see it from practice. Well, I started thinking about practice, and the doctor tells me,

Sorry, I don't want to be so proud, because he found out, he says, you are leading the conciliations. Oh, how good to know, I tell him. The idea is not to lead the conciliations, but the idea is that the people who come, let's say, the processes that are fought in my court, I tell them, people breathe a little peace. Well, Amparo, on December 30th, I'm going to tell you on December 30th.

On December 30, it is about, as I tell you, the acting part, the lawyer, the acting part, a little disengaged, let's say, in the script, and he tells me, "Doctor, I need you to help me." I say, "Well, I don't know." I tell him, "Let's see how I can help you." "Well, first I'm going to give you the audience of the 30th."

I asked him what the problem was, the concrete problem. We had already closed the agreement and I told him, "Don't tell me that the part is already in demand." "No, the problem is not the part in demand, the problem is the actor part." I said, "But if you are representing the actor part, doctor." Then he tells me, "No, what happens is that in the actor part I have the father and I have the mother,

del niño que fallece, del adolescente que ha fallecido, que a último momento están discutiendo, me dice sobre cuánto le corresponde a cada uno. Ajá. Le digo, bueno, lindo problema se encuentra, doctor. Bueno, le digo, este, vamos a llamar a todas las partes. Bueno, ¿qué se reclama en un juicio de indemnización de daño y perjuicio cuando vienen los papás? ¿Qué daños se reclaman? ¿Qué daños?

Let's see, someone, let's say, say, what damage, what is the object, what is the claim, what are the rubles that are claimed? Damage and prejudice for a transit accident, let's say, a teenager, a child. Let's see.

There they are answering you in the chat. Valor, life, yes, moral damage. Here I want to stop. Moral damage, value, life and moral damage. I'm going to stop at the moral damage. Thank you, Jovita. Jovita, Jovita appears to me. I tell you, doctor, tomorrow, the day all the parts answer the phones. Day 30, doctor, tomorrow I tell you, look, I need you to be here tomorrow. Where? In the audience room? No, my office. I tell you, to the office, yes. That's another topic, isn't it? The audience room.

It's an imposing room, right? As I confess that I find it imposing the doors of a operating room, entering a hospital and others, it gives me a little, let's say, of a hurdy-gurdy, let's say, like someone who says, comes to testify as a witness, says, well, it's just a process, no, no, the people who come to the courts also have, when they are not, let's say, a legal operator,

And well, I scare the court a little bit and I say, no, the audience room is not going to be the right place to talk about these issues. Because the audience room has a stage, it has chairs, microphones, cameras, televisions. And I say, let's talk here, there are two people, dad and mom, who don't agree on how much each one was going to receive for moral damage. Well, what was the background of this question? Can we move on to the slide, please?

Well, here we are, the problem of people changing the focus of the files to people. What did I see in the file? And of course, in the file I did not see everything. I could not understand that the father and mother are discussing how much each one corresponded to each other. From that moment on, well, I already warn that there was some family conflict, yes, because if not, well, or if there was no conflict, it had been generated, let's say, at the expense of this process.

So I say, well, the process had not advanced because I had not known the parties because the lawyer, the insurance company offers a lawyer before we have a first hearing, second hearing, with which I had not known the parties. That was another contract that I had. So I say, well, here's a problem. The lawyer leaves, I stay with the date of the hearing and I say, well, let's see what it's about.

It's a problem of the people, I say, there is a family problem, I'm going to prepare for that, I'm not a family judge, but well, I was going to have to address this problem. There is a family problem, so I say, well, the file says that the boy has passed away, the file says that the father and the mother come to complain to us.

The experiment says that there were two brothers who lived, one of the little brothers lived and the other, after the brother's death, an accident, had taken his life. Yes, so there were several things that I did not understand very well. I say I'm not going to condition myself either. In the conciliation we do not have to condition ourselves and I rescue what the noble doctor said, listen

to the people and that we are listened to. The listening is fundamental. They arrive at the audience on December 30th, I receive the parts, there was the defender, the complementary role figure is fundamental, because if there is agreement, that is another issue,

when after working on a conciliation, an agreement is reached, we do not leave things that can be done at that time, we do not leave the homologation for later, we do not leave the issue of the honors for later, we do not leave the conformities for later, because those can destroy a whole path that, as Dr. Noble said, has been being built.

So, lawyers know that when we are going to reconcile, we need time. We cannot reconcile with the clock or run to another audience because we don't know what can happen. So, here in the slide it says to see what is the problem of the people who are in the center. We are all sitting there, as you said, we are all sitting.

the judge has to stay in the estrade, no, I called him to the office, we all sat at a table in my office, how far should I go to not fall in the face of jurisdiction, because if this agreement was not closed, I was, let's say, I was going to have to continue in the process, I was going to have to get to a hearing at the end, and also the active role, the active role that led me, let's say,

to get out of the scheme of the scheme of the compensation of the rubles and to introduce myself in a family conflict. Well, the parties sit down, I present myself before the parties. This time she was not wearing well, she was combed, I was not going to be the focus of distraction.

The lady was very moved. We are talking about a person who had lost her son in an accident and had lost another child outside the experience, but a child who had been killed. It is a person who had lost two children. In addition, there was the defender, there was the gentleman. It is also very important how we arrange ourselves in the room. I start the audience, I introduce myself.

I thank the parties that took their time, on December 30th, to come to the audience. I tell you that this audience had been requested by the lawyer on the acting side, there was the lawyer on the insurance side, and there was enough, this is what Dr. Noble also said, to look, to listen to the gestures, to listen to the comfort of the person, that the person feels comfortable in the audience, yes?

to be able to speak and to be able to say what they think. And especially when there is a family background. So I tell the gentleman, "Sir, I tell you here, they tell me that there is a proposal, the insurance company has offered so much money, let's suppose it was 20 million, of which the company has evaluated

give these 20 million and the distribution would be 6 million for you and 14 million for the... 6 million for you, 12 million for the lady and 2 million for the little brother of the victim, who was the one who had been left alive, who was also claiming moral damage. So the gentleman starts, let's say, I tell him, and my brother has told me that there is a problem, that you would not agree.

Well, sir, I'm here to listen to you, I'm here to help you. It would be important to consider that there is a sum of money today, December 30, the courts will be on holiday throughout January. There is money that perhaps at this time the parties may be needing. And there is also the possibility of closing a process that is very painful.

I say, because this of putting yourself in the other's place without losing the role we have, I have read the file carefully and there is a very painful process that can be closed. So this gentleman tells me that it seemed unfair to him that the lady, the boy's mother, received, let's say, more money than him.

There is the issue of the orange, if it leaves the orange, if it leaves the skin, if it leaves the juice. So I tell him, well, sir, I really tell you that I was listening to you and you are reasonable. I didn't tell you that I assisted you to reason, because to assist reason can be, well, they are judging. And I say, and you have some reasonability, sir, in that you raise this that seems unfair to you.

So I tell him, "Do you know that you have come to claim here?" So he tells me, "Well, I have come to claim for the death of my son." I tell him, "But what is the death of your son? You have come to claim here."

I tell him, "money." I tell him, "what would this have to do with all this?" The lady obviously cried in dismay. My assistant had already been admitted with water, we had been admitted with candy. The gentleman begins to get very nervous and tells me, "well, I don't know," he says, he looks at the lawyer and I tell him, "doctor, can you explain to your client what his name is, what he has come to claim here?" And the lawyer says,

"You came to claim moral harm." "Aha." I say, "And do you know what moral harm means?" And the man looks at me and says, "No, I don't know what it means." "Oh," I say, "well, then let's start there." So I say, "Look, here's pain, right?" "Yes, there is pain," says the lady, she cried. The man didn't cry.

So I tell him, "No one is listening to us more than we are, and this is not being recorded." And I tell him, "It's pain." I tell him, "Well, I want to tell you that here in the right, this pain has a price." And then the man looks at me. So I tell him, "Yes, yes, the pain has a price. And to that pain you have to put a price." In this case,

the insurance company offers them as a price for that pain the sum of 20 million pesos. But here there is something important, I say, I can know a little about the relationship, I say, let me, from you with this boy, I tell you the name, not the name of the deceased boy, what was the relationship like with him, yes, and something very important appears in that audience.

The man says to me, "I started having relationships with my son when I was 10 years old." "Oh," I say to him, "when I was 10 years old." And then a situation begins to arise where I knew that I had to, as he says, "close the conflict a little." Because the lady starts saying,

Well, all the family issues, that I had not recognized him, that I had recognized him, that he recognized him at 10 years old, that he touched that, the food trials, the trials here, the trials there. Of course I needed to listen to him. So I said, "Well, sir, I say, look, excuse me, don't take it badly what I'm going to tell you,

If this doesn't close, we'll have to go to a final sentence. And here comes what Maria José said, jurisprudence, what the court has said, what the authors have said, what the doctrine has said. And I tell you, I want to anticipate that you have a chance today to receive, for the pain that your son's death has caused you, this sum of 6 million pesos.

And also, the Chamber, the courts, which are higher authorities, I explain how the whole system worked. When it quantifies, when it says how much the pain of the person who comes to ask here is worth, that if he pays for your pain, it values many things. It values, among other things, what relationships have the people who claim the pain had with the person who has passed away, in this case.

He values the relationship of the brothers, if they have lived or not with the person. He values, let's say, the relationship of the father and mother with the child, if they have lived or not with the child. And well, in this case I tell him, I'm watching, let's do a little math. I confess to the audience that this was very strong. Let's do a little math and I want to tell you

que usted está en desventaja con la señora en relación a años. Y el señor me mira, se pone mal, comienza, quería sacar un cigarrillo, no se puede fumar en el despacho.

So I said, sir, I invite you a glass of water and if you want to smoke, there is no problem. We are going to accompany you. Smoke in the corridor, don't worry. I tell you, you smoke, don't worry. I'm going to wait for you until you finish smoking. The man left. The lady was crying, disconsolately. And the lady told me, I want to end this. I want to end this. Well, the man comes in and tells me, look, doctor.

the gentleman was very angry, I'm going to receive those 6 million so that this is over. So I told him, no, no, sir, look, if you are going to receive 6 million so that this is over, I'm going to call him back to reflection, if you want, go back to the corridor, I have no problem, I'm here for this, because you have to be convinced because you are going to accept those 6 million pesos.

Because if you accept and the lady accepts, this process ends. You have nothing else to claim and you may be able to, let's say, after the courts, in other instances that are not judicial, but perhaps in counseling, psychologists, therapy or whatever, to process this loss. But here it ends with the payment of the 20 million, 14 for your lady, for your mother, because they were separated, and 6 million for you.

I don't want to hear about the lady, and I'm not going to allow you to talk about yourself either, because the lady wanted to talk about the man, about how bad the father had been. The conflict was not 20 million, 100 million, 200 million. The conflict was food, lack of recognition, and everything else. And this father who appears now,

or that he appeared now to want to equalize, that is to say that in reality the problem was not the economic sum, it was that the father wanted to be equal in his paternity to the motherhood of the lady. And well, all of us here know that what I was telling this person, to say what I was going to do, in short, I was telling him what I was going to do.

Let's say, without telling him, without pre-judging. I had to evaluate. I wasn't telling him how I was going to evaluate him, but I told him I have to evaluate, yes? Because if not, my sentence is going to be arbitrary, yes? The Chamber is going to have to evaluate and the Court is going to evaluate. And in other cases they have already taken these parameters to evaluate. Was I pre-judging? I don't think so. I don't know. What does the auditor think? Was I pre-judging? I don't think so. No, he doesn't say. Well, let's move on to the slides.

How did the agreement end? I did not impose anything on him because the gentleman wanted to tell me that he was doing me the favor of accepting 6 million. No, no, the judges and judges are not to do favors to anyone. The parties are not to do favors to the judges and the lawyers either. The process has to come out, let's say, or end with the abnormal modes, with the normal modes, with the conciliation.

But I say the same thing again, with a little peace. But this hearing had a plus. When we achieve this, if it is judged, it would be worth it. I like the case, he says. Well, no, no, no. Well, we have to take care of it a little bit, he says. The power of the catalyst, facilitate, facilitate. We have facilitated. Yes, also what was here, says empowerment. The parties empowered each other because this man

that you are going to know what the situation was in which he was kept, that conflict, was empowered in the audience. The gentleman seems to me to be ashamed of what he had done, of recognizing a child at the age of 10 and that the recognition occurred in the context of a food trial. I had to probe all that in the audience itself, let's say. So the gentleman

The lady was crying, crying, crying incessantly in the audience and says, well, in any case, the agreement is signed later, the agreement is reached and so on. The gentleman, I tell him, sir, are you convinced of what you are going to sign? So he told him, the gentleman tells me if I am convinced and also without making personal qualifications. This is the opportunity to ask the lady for forgiveness. That's what I heard.

Look at the richness of that audience. The gentleman apologized to a magistrate who has nothing to do with a family process.

He apologized to the lady for not having recognized his son. Nothing to do, I had nothing to do with the recognition, nor with the food, nor with anything. That is, if I go to what we said, say what happens the day after the sentence, the homologation agreement came out that day, December 30, because we couldn't leave

that things happen, things happen, to say, well, no, I regret it more, of course, the honorary ones, the costs, how it ends. The intervention was also very important, because at that same moment the defender was there for the little brother,

that at one point the little brother was in the audience, but at one point we also have to see who should be in the audience because I could not have that child in this situation, let's say, witnessing this conflict talk between that father who was not the father of the child and his mother. It was very strong.

So here we are talking about interests, we are talking about time, we are talking about empowering the parties. The past enters the audience, but it enters limited. The past had to enter the family background and the family conflicts in order to solve it. There are also situations where we have to be aware and in this that Ignacio does not get angry, what I am going to say, Dr. Pocey neither.

where reconciliation can hurt, but where it is not what the party needs. It is where... How can I say it? It is not what the party needs, where it is put in a situation of much exposure to the party. Likewise, a father who had lost a girl with his mother,

I'll tell you about the fact that it was a traffic accident, but it was not only an accident, a girl who was crossing the road, a Tucuman road, had crossed to buy an ice cream, crossing the road, she was run over by a car, the girl flies in the air, more or less 60 meters, the sentence is already there, the investigations are there, that's why I don't give names,

But the girl's body, do you know where it ends up falling? Let's see if anyone can imagine where the girl's body falls. Where does the girl's body fall? Does anyone think of it? No, nobody. In the house, in the house, in the house, in front of her house. Yes, Eugenia and Gabriela in their house. The girl's body is rushed or falls on the door of the house.

where his aunt was talking on the phone, she feels a burst and when she sees the burst, she goes with the 11-year-old girl next to her. We call the audience, try to reconcile. Her father and mother always wanted to be present in the process, and the defendant, who was the person who had been hit, too.

And they also wanted to be simultaneously in the audience. Can you imagine? Let's go back to the case. How much is the life of my son worth? Well, it wasn't worth it. But this gentleman, we return to interest, let's go to the slide. Let's go, let's go to the slide. There it is. There it is, under interest, something similar, Ignacio raised. That's why I say that there are key words that we are going to keep from this talk.

What did these parents feel? She was a girl in rural towns, in rural areas that are urbanized. María José, you saw that there are places that are still declared as rural, but that have generated many

many urbanizations on the side of the road, so we have the kiosk, we have the ice cream shop, the boy crosses the road as if crossing a street, illuminated areas, yes, so where the kids also have to value what is the first thing a father can feel when he sends a child just to cross the road to buy an ice cream, what can you feel if this happens?

There must be parents in this auditorium. That's it, guilt. And it translates, right? In the right to guilt, as we call it in the right, the guilt of being unguarded, right? Well, what could this father have felt, let's say, in this process? A guilt, right? He also felt tremendous hatred against that person who had impacted, let's say, his daughter.

Well, beyond the responsibility of how this process was determined, the objective responsibility, if it fractures the nexus and everything we can investigate, our court also has a recent failure, a very, very, very nice failure of the Tukuman Court, it is called Medina against NOAA.

where this guilt in vigilando is analyzed and to what extent, let's say, can the guilt in vigilando be interpreted as an element that fractures, let's say, a causal nexus. This Pope could not reconcile, it was not a matter of numbers, or 50,000 million dollars, or 100,000 million dollars. The Pope needed the sentence.

So there comes a time when we as legal operators have to see how far we can go to bring reconciliation. I brought reconciliation to the point where I said that the Pope needed a sentence.

and he didn't know how that sentence was going to come out. Neither did I, because we were advancing with the evidence and so on. As scary as the case may be at the time of trial, evaluation of the evidence, legal framework, motivation, argumentation of the sentence. But he wanted the sentence. At the time of the allegations, of course, you can imagine what the allegations of the guarantee quote were,

I invited him, let's say, the mother got out of the room, we had to make her leave the room, be assisted by doctors. I invited him to the dad so that he could retire, that his lawyer would explain to him, I explained to him that he could or could not be, that it was not relevant that he was there, because of course, all the defense of the guarantee was that it was the fault of the vigilante and the rupture of the nexus. So at that point I also understood that the conciliation

we can implement it at any time. And in this case, the situation put a limit on me, which I also had to understand, because the interest that is very low, if I wanted to reach this end, which was peace and so on, and peace came with a sentence, because in this case the sentence was quite... It's peeled off at this moment, it's in the camera.

But hey, it took place, let's say, the lawsuit prospered, but hey, it could not have prospered, but the person needed, he said, I want, at one point we also had to reassure the gentleman that justice be done. And for him justice at that time, at that time, was not, let's say,

the only possibility he had was for someone to condemn him, to condemn him, let's say, not to fix him, he couldn't agree at that time, he needed a convict. We'll see what the camera says, but well, in this sense, that's why I always say I return to interest and I return to this, to say that interest is often below the position, interest is below the position,

and that's what marks us on how we can reach those interests. The case of the turtle, which is very jocose, also shows interest. The turtle, a eviction trial, in those cases we are facing cases in which I can't see it fully. What does Claudia say? Not average. No, no, the consideration must always be tried.

Hay que intentarla, como les digo, el otro día cerraron los alegatos, hice pausar y volví, sí, volví. Y les quiero contar que después de dictar una sentencia en una audiencia de que más o menos era como de ejecución, también intenté conciliar la ejecución. Así que se puede conciliar siempre.

What I want to tell you is that you always have to have, let's say, this question of time, interest, and how far we can go, because interest is what marks, what denotes how we can reconcile, let's say, how far we can reconcile. The turtle.

Before I was in the civil forum, I was subloading in a forum called "Documents and Locations" in Tucumán, where executive payments are processed, compliance with contracts, some contracts, and also eviction. A lady who started an eviction action

and the defendant had lent the property to another lady who lived with a daughter, where we already had a condiment in that apartment, a daughter who was disabled. We connected to the first hearing

answers the demand in a sort of enlightenment, the part, the demanded part, yes, basically manifests that he was going to go, but he didn't know when. We have a deadline to have the launch. The actor part wanted him to leave right now. Well, a series of questions there and so on. Well, then, how does the turtle appear? I had never been in the file, obviously.

At that moment, I tell the acting part that she was not living, I tell her, ma'am, you have a current need, I tell her to have the property, because here there is a collaboration of the demanded part, she is collaborating with the process, but she has a disabled girl too, she is going to have to find a place.

What could we talk about? About the deadline? No, I don't have a hurry, but I don't want her to stay with my house. No, she's not going to stay with her house. I tell her, the lady is protesting here.

that the house is yours, but it needs some time. I say to you, what could, let's say, what benefit? I say to you, what can we talk about? One points to terms of money, not always money is the element to close the negotiation or the consideration, sorry. So he tells me, no, no, he tells me, what happens is that I, in that house, he tells me, when I left, that house, in that house, in the garden, I had a turtle.

"A turtle." I asked her, "What happened to the turtle?" She said, "Well, the turtle stayed in that house." I asked the lady in charge, "Ma'am, have you seen a turtle in the house?" "Yes," she said. I knew that when she told me that, I said, "There's the interest." What was below, the turtle. I said, "Ma'am, do you know about the turtle? Have you seen it?" "Yes," she said. "I saw the turtle coming there." "But you know that the turtle says..."

Sometimes the turtle is not there. Lately, have you seen the turtle? No. So we have taken the focus, I say here is the opportunity to take the focus, return it or not, because you have to find a house. The focus is the turtle. I tell her, what do you think, I tell the acting part, if you give her a time, the part of command, she will not only look for the house, but at that time, as the acting part was living in another province,

the defendant can also look for the turtle in the house. I say, it's six months, you can look for the turtle. So I say, yes, because the little turtle says the acting part, that the turtle, that here, that that, that the turtle. Well, I say, let's do one thing. I say, inside, I said, well, I already have the deadline, we already have a deadline.

I say, "Six months? What do you think, six months?" "You, ma'am, I say, will you be able to find a house?" "Yes, because in six months I do this, that." And the acting part says, "Yes, I agree, six months." The acting part says, "And what if she doesn't find the turtle?" Of course, it was something that wasn't planned. And I say, "Look, if she doesn't find the turtle,

I tell him, "What do you have to offer?" I tell him, "The part of the mandate." "I commit," he says, "I have a friend who is in the field and can get," he says, "a turtle." The agreement was closed the time needed for the turtle. So look, the important thing in conciliation is to be able to listen

and to be able to reveal what the real interest is, where we can find that point of negotiation, or that point where the parties can give up without feeling that they are losing. Because the lady was making time and the party in charge was also making time, the two were making time and they avoided, let's say, a sentence that orders a release where,

the release would have to be produced in the time that the code has, to intervene, let's say, to the people who are in the directions of disability, and see what happens the day after that sentence, where the judge does not find out again if the sentence is appealed, because the truth is that once one dictates the sentence, that the sentence goes to the camera, we find out if the sentence returns to the camera, how it returns to the camera, if it is annulled, revoked, or if it goes to the court.

This is to highlight the importance of these experiences, the audience, to be able to handle what we said, the listening, the emotions, the true interests, the parts, to know at what point we can empower the parties, because this is about putting on an equal footing, to say, well, who comes to negotiate, let's say, in this part?

and not be afraid of the pre-trial because technically the doctor has said it, also the double doctor, that is, there are things that we cannot say, look, if you do not fix it, I will condemn you in the trial, look, they offer you 20, but if I give you, I will give you 10. But we can ask other types of questions and the lawyer himself is also the one who has to know, the lawyer, that if he conciliates, the lawyer is not losing.

Because the lawyer, the actor, many times when he thinks about the audiences, it is also difficult to work many times with lawyers, to show this alternative exit as a matter of saying,

The conciliation does not make you show how the lawyer who has lost, who has had to, well, who has had to fix it, shows you as that lawyer who can help the party or assist the party in a process that is, let's say, that is brief, because the solution is carried out in a short term. And I always make it clear to the party and to the lawyers that I have no problem with dictating the sentence.

The dictation of the sentence is not a problem for us and the conciliation is not to get us out of the problem and not to dictate the sentence. The conciliation is to make this society a little breathable. Well, I'm looking at the time, 1:25. I hope I have made some contribution to you. Mine has been more practical, with what we can find each other.

So I hope it was useful for you and above all to say that we are here to bring peace to the lawyer, the lawyer, who we study, we have decided for this career

We have a social function. What we do has a social impact. That's what I want to conclude with. So thank you very much. Thank you to the audience. Thank you, María José. Thank you, Ignacio, for your contribution. I have learned a lot today in this training. So thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Florencia. Thank you very much, Ignacio. We are out of time.

Yes.

There is no prohibition, let's say, for me, I always believe in good faith and process loyalty. It seems to me that lawyers can work the conflict, the agreement always has to be on the part, the part in which it has to be convinced, and I think the lawyer also has the resources to show him within the process strategy

What possibilities does a trial have to win? We often know that in a trial you have to provide evidence. So, while the search for the truth is being pursued and everything else,

the evidence has to be in the process. So I think that here the lawyer, whenever he works within the framework of good faith and process loyalty, I think that he is always enriching. And most importantly, the lawyer, many times, I always say,

I leave the lawyers in touch, right? We don't get there and I say, well, the lawyers stay in touch and please give me their phone numbers. If they need me, they let me know with a letter that they need me to collaborate.

Because the lawyer cannot assume a personal role in the defense of his client, right? That is, it is not a personal issue that a lawyer has when a process comes. So working the conflict without the part for technical reasons does not seem to me to be prohibitive, as long as it is within the framework of the good faith and loyalty to process.

Well, thank you very much, Dr. Florencia, Dr. Ignacio and the entire auditorium. Thank you very much for all this training and for being present here. Thank you to Catamarca for welcoming us and allowing us to give our experience. And well, we are already for the final exam next week, which will already be notified by your coordinators, what will be the exam mode. In principle, it will be on Friday,

de 15 a 18 por el partido y el sábado de 9 a 13 horas. Ya vamos a notificarles la modalidad. Todo lo demás ya está en conocimiento de los coordinadores que les van a informar oportunamente. Bueno, muchísimas gracias a los docentes y a todo el público por compartir este espacio de capacitación permanente. Hasta siempre.

-

Sí, el material pasado acá va a ser entregado a Jacqueline para que suba a los grupos, así que van a poder contar con él para el examen final. Bueno, muchísimas gracias. Hasta luego. Hasta luego. Gracias. Buen fin de semana.