#SéJurídico: El derecho probatorio
Introduction to Probative Law
Overview of the Presentation
- The session introduces the topic of probative law, led by Dr. Héctor Francisco Allevante, a distinguished lawyer and educator from Universidad Santo Tomás.
- The focus is on Article 167 of the General Code of Procedure, emphasizing two key principles: necessity of proof and burden of proof.
Key Principles in Probative Law
- Judicial decisions must be based on legally obtained evidence; any evidence acquired in violation of due process is null and void.
- A distinction is made between nullity related to procedural provisions and exclusionary events affecting the evidence itself.
Understanding Burden of Proof
Static Burden of Proof
- Article 167 establishes that both parties (claimant and defendant) have an obligation to prove their claims or defenses.
- This principle traces back to ancient Roman law, where legal actions were only permissible for facts codified in written law.
Legal Obligations
- Each party must demonstrate their claims based on substantial norms that define rights and obligations within society.
- The norm referenced must not merely describe a circumstance but should have relevant legal effects.
Dynamic Burden of Proof
Flexibility in Evidence Submission
- The second mechanism discussed is dynamic burden of proof, which allows for flexibility in proving allegations when one party has easier access to necessary evidence.
- Judges may order the opposing party to provide evidence if it’s difficult for one side to obtain it themselves.
Community Principle in Evidence
- When one party presents evidence, it becomes part of the judicial process; thus, all parties can utilize this shared information during proceedings.
Understanding the Role of Evidence in Legal Processes
The Social Impact of Evidence in Judicial Decisions
- The process of evidence becomes a matter of public order, belonging to society and the judicial process. The judge's decision is based solely on this evidence, aiming for social peace and harmony.
Objectives of Legal Processes
- Legal processes aim not only to resolve disputes but also to achieve social peace and harmony. This underscores the justification for community principles in evidentiary acquisition.
Responsibility for Providing Evidence
- Those who can provide evidence, whether by request or ex officio, are obligated to do so as they are better positioned to contribute. This shifts the focus from who must present evidence to ensuring its relevance and admissibility.
Understanding Burden of Proof
- The burden of proof refers not just to who presents evidence but rather who bears the legal consequences if a fact remains unproven. For instance, in medical liability cases where obtaining certain documents may be impossible due to circumstances beyond control.
Dynamic vs Static Burden of Proof
- The dynamic burden allows for shifting responsibilities between parties regarding evidence provision. It emphasizes that what matters is not who provides the proof but that it is relevant and leads to fulfilling legal obligations.
Inversion of Burden of Proof
- Care must be taken when inverting the burden of proof; it should not lead one party into an impossible situation regarding their ability to prove facts essential for their case.
Diabolical Evidence Concept
- "Diabolical evidence" refers to situations where one party is placed at a disadvantage, making it impossible for them to prove necessary facts due to imposed conditions.
Presumptions in Law
- There are two types of presumptions: legal (iuris et iure), which cannot be contested, and judicial (iuris tantum), which allow for counter-evidence. These play a crucial role in determining how burdens are allocated within legal proceedings.
Examples Illustrating Burden Shifts
- In child support cases, presenting birth certificates establishes parental relationships (the base fact). This supports claims under civil codes obligating parents to provide support based on established familial ties.
Legal Presumptions and Burden of Proof
Understanding Legal Obligations for Alimony
- The obligation to pay alimony is established through legal presumption, relieving the claimant from proving additional facts. The burden shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.
- If the defendant fails to demonstrate compliance with alimony obligations, they may face severe consequences, including travel restrictions and financial penalties as outlined in Colombia's Child and Adolescent Code (Law 1098 of 2006).
Mechanisms of Legal Presumptions
- Legal presumptions serve as a mechanism for shifting the burden of proof; however, not all situations involve such presumptions. For instance, paternity is presumed when a child is born during a marriage.
- A mother only needs to establish her marital status for the presumption that her husband is the father of her child, thus shifting the burden onto him to disprove this fact if he contests it.
Inversion of Burden in Civil Cases
- In civil cases like rental disputes, if a landlord claims unpaid rent, they do not need to provide evidence beyond stating that payment was not received; this reflects an inversion of the burden of proof where denial does not require substantiation.
- The tenant must then prove their claim that they have made payments rather than requiring the landlord to prove non-payment—this illustrates how legal principles can create practical challenges in litigation.
Diabolical Evidence: Definition and Implications
- "Diabolical evidence" refers to scenarios where individuals are asked to prove impossible claims or denials within judicial processes—historically linked to medieval inquisitions where defendants were forced into untenable positions.
- Such practices are deemed unacceptable in modern law; examples include expecting patients under anesthesia during surgery to recall events occurring in the operating room as part of establishing liability against medical professionals.
Consequences of Diabolical Evidence Requests
- Courts should avoid placing parties in situations where they must prove impossible assertions; doing so undermines fair trial principles and can lead to unjust outcomes. An example includes demanding property titles from possessors who are merely defending their possession rights without clear ownership claims.
- This concept emphasizes protecting individuals from being subjected to unreasonable evidentiary burdens that could compromise their ability to defend themselves effectively within legal proceedings.
Discussion on Burden of Proof in Sports Law
Case Study: Robert Farah and the Doping Controversy
- The speaker references the case of tennis player Robert Farah, who faced doping allegations due to consuming contaminated meat, highlighting the complexities involved in proving intent.
- Farah was absolved by a sports tribunal because he consumed the meat in good faith, unaware that it could lead to a positive doping test due to veterinary medications used in Colombia.
Legal Implications of Burden of Proof
- The discussion emphasizes that placing the burden on an athlete to prove lack of intent can create a "diabolical test," which is deemed unacceptable within legal frameworks.
- The speaker advocates for acceptable practices like dynamic proof burdens and presumptions where one party must demonstrate foundational facts leading to consequences for the other party.
Static vs. Dynamic Burden of Proof
- A distinction is made between static and dynamic burdens; static burden lies with those alleging facts while dynamic burden shifts based on circumstances, but should not lead to impossible evidentiary situations.
- It is argued that imposing an impossible standard on one party creates adverse legal consequences and undermines fair trial principles.
Conclusion and Further Discussion
- The speaker reiterates the importance of understanding these concepts—static vs. dynamic burdens—and warns against creating scenarios where parties face insurmountable proof challenges.
- Future discussions will delve deeper into these topics during specialized academic sessions, emphasizing ongoing education in procedural law.