The Supreme Court of Justice has published a new framework for alternative dispute resolution within the Judicial Branch. Agreement 595, approved on October 1, 2026, and published in the Official Gazette on October 13, entirely replaces Agreement 685 of 2015 and regulates aspects of the directorate, centers and personnel providing these services.

Article 1 establishes the goal of providing mediation, conciliation and other mechanisms in an accessible, confidential, impartial and timely manner. Reducing court backlogs, improving access to justice and reaching amicable settlements are identified as institutional objectives. For users, this places dialogue and solutions developed by the parties at the center of the services envisaged by the regulation.

For individuals and businesses, a significant part of the text concerns safeguards governing professional involvement. Article 17 requires practitioners to explain the nature of the service, protect confidentiality and remain impartial. It also prohibits creating false expectations about outcomes and requires a fair process without forcing the parties to reach an agreement. The rules also address conflicts of interest. If a conflict arises after proceedings have begun, the mediator or conciliator must withdraw and inform the center's coordinator. Practitioners must also disclose personal or professional circumstances that could raise doubts about their impartiality; this duty continues throughout the procedure.

The requirements for professionals who provide these services include both training and the corresponding accreditation. Under article 16, practitioners in these centers must meet applicable legal requirements, hold mediator and conciliator certification from the Ministry of Government, and be Judicial Branch officials appointed under the judicial career system.

The agreement also regulates restorative processes. Article 62 permits their use in judicial, community, educational, family and neighborhood settings, and in matters eligible for alternative methods under applicable legislation. Article 63 requires these processes to be conducted by mediators or conciliators assigned to the centers who have training in restorative justice.

For lawyers and users, the updated text is the reference for reviewing the conditions governing these services and the duties of those involved. Article 69 links entry into force to approval and publication in the Official Gazette, completed on October 13. Replacing the earlier framework does not automatically make every dispute eligible for these procedures.