The dynamic burden of proof. A look between the challenge and reality
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
HTML (Español (España))
The author (or authors) of the article titled: ________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________, which is submitted to the editorial process, certifies and authorizes the following considerations:
- I certify that I am a primary author of the article presented for possible publication. I guarantee that the entire content is a product of my intellectual contribution. All information and references to any material already published are correctly attributed and included in the references and citations. In cases when it is required, I have obtained the necessary permissions from those who possess the property rights.
- The article has not been published nor submitted simultaneously to any other serial publication for editorial consideration.
- I certify that all the references and cites in the article are cited according to the journal’s guidelines.
- I authorize the journal to evaluate and ask for external evaluation (peer reviewers).
- I guarantee that all the materials presented are entirely free of copyright. I am responsible for any lawsuit or any complaint related to intellectual property rights. I release Surcolombiana University of any charge.
- I authorize the journal to send emails to solve any situation presented during the editorial process.
- In the case that the article is approved for publication, as author and owner of the copyright, I transfer the rights to the journal unlimited time to include the manuscript in the Piélagus Journal. The text can be reproduced, edited, exhibited, and circulated in the country and abroad. That process can be through print, electronic publication, CD ROM, internet, full text or any other means known or to be known.
By completing the following, I confirm the previous to be true and agree to the aforementioned terms on __________ (month) the ____ (day), 20__ in ___city____, (____Country__).
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
This legal dissertation tries to show an approach to the phenomenon of the dynamic burden of proof, based on historical indo-deductive research, as one of those institutes for procedural law that ends nuanced by the application of the judge. Following, and based on the Colombian law, the origin of both concepts was scrutinized (the burden of proof and its "dynamic" version), finding its high risk of arbitrariness. It led to the conclusion that the unification of its application criteria is still complex despite the legal efforts to give it a structure, which becomes nothing more than an alternative of selective use. However, it is still better not to use it in order to avoid the same current tendency as a sophisticated concept day by day farther from reality due to its multiple exceptions.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
I. Abreu, A. (2011). La prueba en los procesos ante la corte interamericana de derechos humanos. México: Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM. Obtenido de http://www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/5/2454/8.pdf,
II. Ascencio, J. M. (2004). Derecho procesal penal. Valencia: Editorial Tirant lo Blanch.
III. Azula, J. (2008). Manual de Derecho Procesal General. Bogotá: Temis.
IV. Carnelutti, F. (1973). Derecho Procesal Civil y Penal. Derecho y Proceso. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.
V. Devis, H. (1970). Teoría General de la Prueba Judicial. Bogotá: Temis.
VI. Devis, H. (1994). Compendio de Derecho procesal. Pruebas Judiciales. Bogotá: Biblioteca jurídica DIKE.
VII. Iglesias, J. I. (1995). Estudios sobre Derecho probatorio, Bogotá. Bogotá: Ediciones jurídicas Gustavo Ibáñez.
VIII. Muñoz, L. (1997). Técnica probatoria. Estudios sobre las dificultades de la prueba en el proceso. Bogotá: Editorial Temis C.A.
IX. Parra, J. (2007). Manual de Derecho Probatorio. Bogotá: Ediciones del Profesional.
X. Pérez, J. (2011). La carga dinámica de la prueba en la responsabilidad administrativa por la actividad médica -decaimiento de su aplicabilidad. Estudios de Derecho, 152.
XI. Pico, J. (2002). Las garantías constitucionales del proceso. Barcelona: Editorial J.M. Bosch Editor.
XII. Vescovi, E. (1984). Teoría General del Proceso. Bogotá: Temis.
REFERENCIAS JURISPRUDENCIALES
XIII. CE, s3, Rad. 11220/ 1997, C.P. C. Betancour (Consejo de Estado 08 de mayo de1997).
XIV. CE, s3, rad. 11878/2000, C.P. A. Hernández (Consejo de Estado10 de febrero de 2000).
XV. CE, s3, rad. 13166/2001, C.P. R. Hoyos. (Consejo de Estado 22 de marzo de 2001).
XVI. CE, s3, rad. 15772/2006, C.P. R. Stella (Consejo de Estado 31 de agosto de 2006).
XVII. CE, s3, rad. 5902/1990, C.P. G. Greiff (Consejo de Estado 24 de octubre de 1990).
XVIII. CE, s3, Rad. 6754/1992, C.P. C. Betancur (Consejo de Estado 24 de agosto de 1992).
XIX. CConst, C – 292/2002, M.P. J. Araujo (Corte Constitucional 2002 de abril de 2002).
XX. CConst, C- 1194/2005, M.P. M. Monroy (Corte Constitucional 22 de noviembre de 2005).
XXI. CConst, C-621/1998, MP. J. Hernández (Corte Constitucional 04 de noviembre de 1998).
XXII. CConst, T – 1165/2003, M.P. R. Escobar (Corte Constitucional 04 de diciembre de 2003).
XXIII. CConst, T – 230/1994, M.P. E. Cifuentes (Corte Constitucional 13 de mayo de 1994).
XXIV. CConst, T – 422/1992, M.P. E. Cifuentes (Corte Constitucional 19de Junio de1992).
XXV. CConst, T- 835/2000. M.P. A. Martínez (Corte Constitucional, 05 de Julio de 2000).
XXVI. CConst, T-423/2011, MP. J. Henao (Corte Constitucional 17 de mayo de 2011).
XXVII. CConst, T-596/2004, M.P. M.Cepeda (Corte Constitucional15 de Junio de 2004).
XXVIII. CSJ, SCP, rad. 33660/2011, M.P. F. Castro (Corte Suprema de Justicia 25 de mayo de 2011).
XXIX. Directiva 2000/43/CE/2000 (Consejo Europeo 29 de junio de 2000).
XXX. L. 1564/2012
