Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: The assessment of testimonial evidence in proceedings involving sexual offenses against minors constitutes a legal challenge due to the complexity of memory, perception, and psychological factors that may influence the construction and retrieval of testimony. Its analysis requires the integration of legal criteria and contributions from forensic psychology. Objective: To analyze the psychology of testimony as a scientific auxiliary tool for the judicial assessment of minors' testimonial statements in proceedings involving sexual offenses within the Peruvian criminal justice system. Methodology: A qualitative study was conducted using a documentary design and a legal hermeneutic approach. Specialized doctrinal sources, national case law, and literature related to forensic psychology were reviewed, focusing on criteria concerning credibility assessment, suggestibility factors, and corroboration of testimonial evidence. Results: The analysis showed that minors' accounts may be influenced by factors such as external and internal suggestibility, memory, interview context, and other variables capable of affecting their content. Therefore, judicial assessment requires technical procedures that allow the quality of testimony to be examined and interpretations based on stereotypes to be avoided. Likewise, testimonial evidence should be assessed in conjunction with other available evidentiary elements, avoiding both its automatic dismissal and its isolated consideration. Conclusions: The psychology of testimony constitutes a relevant auxiliary tool for guiding the assessment of minors' statements; however, it does not replace legal analysis or the comprehensive assessment of evidence. The study proposes the principle of evidentiary correspondence, integrating credibility with objective corroboration, together with specialized training for justice system professionals in forensic psychology and a gender-sensitive approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palomino et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: