Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
logo

Artículos de Revisión

Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez

Gobernabilidad del poder judicial y gestión de atención al usuario: revisión sistemática de dimensiones institucionales, operativas y de satisfacción ciudadana

Governance of the judiciary and user service management: a systematic review of institutional, operational and citizen satisfaction dimensions
Publicado
2026-04-17

La modernización de los sistemas de justicia constituye un desafío ineludible para fortalecer el Estado de Derecho. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la relación entre la gobernabilidad del Poder Judicial y la gestión de atención al usuario mediante una revisión sistemática. Se aplicó un enfoque cualitativo documental con diseño bibliográfico, siguiendo el protocolo PRISMA 2020 y el Modelo Hurtado de Barrera. Se consultaron las bases de datos Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO y ProQuest para el período 2014-2024. De 847 estudios encontrados, se seleccionaron 25 representativos que cumplieron los criterios de elegibilidad. Los resultados evidencian que la transparencia judicial incrementa la confianza pública entre 23% y 41%, mientras que la digitalización mejora la eficiencia operativa. La accesibilidad mediante servicios virtuales amplía el acceso a la justicia. Se concluye que la gobernabilidad judicial efectiva constituye un determinante crítico de la calidad en la atención al usuario, siendo la integración tecnológica y la transparencia factores cruciales para fortalecer la legitimidad institucional y la satisfacción ciudadana.

The modernization of justice systems constitutes an unavoidable challenge to strengthen the Rule of Law. The objective of this study is to a






671






nalyze the relationship between judicial governance and user service management through a systematic review. A qualitative documentary approach with bibliographic design was applied, following the PRISMA 2020 protocol and the Hurtado de Barrera Model. Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, and ProQuest databases were consulted for the 2014-2024 period. From 847 studies found, 25 representative ones that met the eligibility criteria were included. The results show that judicial transparency increases public trust between 23% and 41%, while digitalization improves operational efficiency. Accessibility through virtual services expands access to justice. It is concluded that effective judicial governance constitutes a critical determinant of quality in user service, with technological integration and transparency being crucial factors to strengthen institutional legitimacy and citizen satisfaction.

Número:
Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez
Sección:
Artículos de Revisión

Referencias

  1. Abuseridze, G., & Kikilashvili, G. (2025). The role of the judiciary in the modern legal state and its interaction with domestic and international law. In Globalization Global Security and New International Realities for Modern Democracies. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-1355-9.ch002
  2. Adhikari, N., Chhajed, M., Raichura, D., & Bhavathankar, P. (2025). LexChain: A Blockchain-based legal system. International Journal of Information Management, 74, 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102715
  3. Ahmed, A. A. M., Guled, A. M. A., & Omar, M. M. (2024). The Effect of Judicial Transparency on Trust. Public Administration Review, 84(3), 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13745
  4. Ahmed, N. H., Ahmed, A. A. M., & Guled, A. M. A. (2025). Access to Justice and the Right to a Fair Trial. Journal of Human Rights, 24(1), 88-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2024.2389102
  5. Ahmed, R. K., Ahmed, O., Pappel, I., Reitsakas, A., & Draheim, D. (2022). The Role of Digital Transformation in Courts. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101675
  6. Brants, C., y Karstedt, S. (2017). Transitional Justice and the Public Sphere. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 11(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijw033
  7. Chao, F. (2017). Litigation visualization through transdisciplinary design. Information Design Journal, 23(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.2.04cha
  8. Chaves, L. V. R., Sousa, M. D. M., Costa, W. P. D., Traguetto, J., Cardoso, F. M. C. B., & Matos-Torres, M. D. (2025). Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol. Plos One, 20(1), e0296785. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296785
  9. Dissanayake, S. (2022). Justice After Covid 19: An Analysis of the Challenges Faced by the Formal Justice System. Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 9(2), 150-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2022.2045678
  10. Domingos, A. (2024). Judicial governance and institutional trust: A comparative analysis. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(2), 210-235. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2023.45
  11. Fix-Fierro, H., y López-Ayllón, S. (2018). El rediseño de la justicia en América Latina. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.9786073005828p.2018
  12. Fregosi, C., & Cabitza, F. (2024). A Frictional Design Approach: Towards Judicial AI and its Possible Futures. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32(1), 89-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09356-9
  13. Fregosi, C., y Cabitza, F. (2024). A Frictional Design Approach: Towards Judicial AI and its Possible Futures. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32(1), 89-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09356-9
  14. Gajdošová, M. (2024). Judges' Councils. European Constitutional Law Review, 20(1), 145-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401962300045X
  15. Gargarella, R. (2020). La derrota del derecho en América Latina: Siete tesis. Siglo XXI Editores. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789876299955
  16. Ghai, Y., & Cottrell, J. (2009). Marginalized communities and access to justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867013
  17. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Klijn, A. L. (2015). The effects of judicial transparency on public trust. Public Administration, 93(3), 715-733. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12146
  18. Karpen, I. O., & Senova, M. (2021). Designing for Trust: Role and Benefits of Human-Centered Design in the Legal System. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.36745/IJCA.422
  19. Langbroek, P. (2024). Relying on the Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 15(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.512
  20. Onţanu, E. A. (2024). e-Justice Governance in the EU. In Contributions to Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56045-3_16
  21. Pásara, L. (2014). Una reforma imposible: La justicia latinoamericana en el banquillo. Fondo Editorial de la PUCP. https://doi.org/10.18800/9786123170422
  22. Pérez-Perdomo, R. (2019). Lawyers and justice in Latin America: The challenges of the 21st century. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 26(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2018.1554318
  23. Pierce, G., Rodriquez-Whitney, E., Drakulich, K., Shatz, S., y Radelet, M. (2023). How Endogenous System Bias Can Distort Decision-Making in Criminal Justice Systems. Social Justice Research, 36(2), 192–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00408-8
  24. Rositawati, D. (2022). An Interdisciplinary Legal Study of the Organisation of the Courts: The Methodological Consequences. Indonesian Journal of Socio Legal Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2022v2n1.5
  25. Santiso, C. (2003). Economic reform and judicial governance in Brazil: Balancing independence with accountability. Democratization, 10(4), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340312331294077
  26. Santiso, C. (2004). Economic reform and judicial governance in Brazil: Balancing independence with accountability. In Democratization and the Judiciary. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203485408
  27. Tahura, U. S., y Alam, S. (2025). Looking ahead to legal aid services in Bangladesh: Is access to justice an unattainable ideal? International Journal of the Legal Profession, 32(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2025.2454322
  28. Trebilcock, M., Duggan, A., & Sossin, L. (2012). Middle income access to justice. In Middle Income Access to Justice. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442661845
  29. Utami, N. A. T., Raharjo, A., Prayitno, K. P., Wahyudi, S., Bintoro, R. W., & Ismail, N. (2025). Evaluation of Legal Aid Service Quality and Supervision in Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System, 5(1), 187–216. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i1.502
  30. Verma, A. (2025). The Role of Technology in Modernizing India's Legal System: A Public Perspective. Criminal Justice Ethics, 44(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2025.2530279
  31. Viapiana, F., van Dijk, F., & Diephuis, B. (2023). Pressure on judges: How managerialisation and evolving professional standards affect judges' autonomy, efficiency and stress. Onati Socio Legal Series, 13(S1), S347–S385. https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.1672
  32. Velicogna, M., & Ng, G. Y. (2006). Legitimacy and internet in the judiciary: A lesson from the Italian courts' websites experience. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14(3), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eal009
  33. Wirya, A., Larasati, A., Gruskin, S., & Ferguson, L. (2020). Expanding the role of paralegals: Supporting realization of the right to health for vulnerable communities. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-020-00226-y
  34. Xue, Q., & Chen, B. (2025). Quarantined Justice, Compromised Diversity: Barriers to Disability Inclusion in China's Public Sector Employment. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9083
  35. Yang, Q., & Lee, Y.-C. (2024). Ethical AI in Financial Inclusion: The Role of Algorithmic Fairness on User Satisfaction and Recommendation. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc8090105
  36. Završnik, A., Briški, L., & Plesničar, M. M. (2024). Digitalisation of the Slovenian Justice System and Its Discontents. Revija Za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo, 75(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.13165/j.icj.2019.12.009
  37. Zolea, S. (2022). Transparency and Access to Judicial Decisions Facing the Challenge of New Technologies. Politica Del Diritto, 53(3), 463–506. https://doi.org/10.1437/105016