They certainly are. In fact, several hearings have already been held in the country under this modality, in different processes throughout the country.
It is fair to say that in Uruguay the use of videoconferencing was already planned since 2013 exclusively for evidentiary purposes (party statements, witness statements and expert evidence). But it took the pandemic for a 2020 law to extend the use of videoconferencing – and other telematic means – to all types of court hearings.
With a couple of caveats: the first, the use of videoconferencing was reserved for “exceptional situations”; and the second, the Supreme Court of Justice (the “SCJ”) was entrusted with the regulation of the use of this tool, including the delimitation of situations of exception. This regulation has not yet been issued.
Without prejudice to this last pendency, the truth is that court hearings can take place through videoconference and practice is endorsing this (Limited, of course, to those courts that have the necessary technical tools).
Naturally, and at least until the SCJ’s regulation is issued, some issues remain. Fundamentally in terms of the scope of the exceptional situations in which the hearing would be allowed to be held through this type of platform. Everything seems to indicate that exceptionality has to do with situations or circumstances of time and/or space that impose this modality, or that make the face-to-face hearing unfeasible. Other questions have to do with the type of computer system through which the videoconference should be carried out: that is, whether they must necessarily be official systems, or whether they can be unofficial, or possibly hybrid.
In short: although the system can be perfected, we have taken a fundamental step. Today the virtual hearing is already a reality in our country, beyond the fact that, as in so many other aspects, there are naturally aspects that time will fine-tune.
