judge Sufficiency, acceptance, and proof convicction in the civil process
Sufficiency, acceptance, and proof convicction in the civil process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70635/riej.v9i9.44Keywords:
Penitentiary system, legality, colonialism, criminal conviction, human rights., Supreme Court,Abstract
This paper presents a recurring issue related to deficiencies observed in the norms on evidence evaluation in civil procedural law, its use by trial judges, and its (lack of) control by higher courts. This is because there is also no criterion regarding the sufficiency of evidence necessary to consider (or not) a fact as proven, and the comparative law proposals do not fit into a system of evidence that is predominantly legal, as is ours. All this affects a diminished and lax motivation about the proven facts, since it opts for a proportional attitude of unjustified belief. It is for this reason that the reasoning regarding facts in civil judgments is far from what is demanded of the administration of justice.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 leonardo llanos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Los contenidos publicados en esa Revista están disponibles libremente en línea para cualquier persona, con un acceso libre y gratuito a los artículos y otros materiales académicos publicados, en tanto esta política contribuye a promover la difusión y el intercambio amplio del conocimiento.
La Revista de Estudios Judiciales mantiene una política de acceso abierto a sus contenidos bajo la licencia Creative Commons 4.0 o sus actualizaciones. © 2023 CC BY 4.0.
La Revista no cobra costos de recepción, envío o publicación de artículos.
