The Current Communication of the Costa Rican Judiciary from the Perspective of Due Process

Abstract

This article analyzes the current communication strategies employed by the Costa Rican Judiciary through the lens of due process, examining the extent to which such communication may be influenced by populist discourse. The study applies a qualitative, bibliographic research methodology rooted in action-research principles. It synthesizes theoretical and empirical insights from scholarly literature on punitive populism, digital populism, and media ethics. The central argument is that, while transparency and citizen engagement are essential, institutional communication via social media and traditional outlets may inadvertently adopt emotional or sensationalist rhetoric, thereby distorting public perceptions of justice. Such discourse risks undermining fundamental rights—most notably, the presumption of innocence—by reinforcing simplistic narratives about criminality and promoting spectacles that appeal to fear rather than critical understanding. Key findings include the identification of emotional slogans, media-driven dramatization, and manipulated narratives that amplify insecurity and delegitimize suspects before judicial verdicts. The article also explores historical and literary precedents of populist rhetoric to illustrate its enduring persuasive power. In conclusion, the study advocates for ethically responsible communication that respects human rights and democratic integrity. It proposes civic education strategies—such as media literacy workshops and student-led projects—to empower the public against manipulative narratives. Ultimately, the research underscores the need for transparent, evidence-based judicial communication that upholds the principles of due process in both form and substance.