Assigning evidentiary consequences to the parties' conduct. Failure to comply with a burden or a duty?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v77n170a04Keywords:
False confession, presumed confession, absolute presumption, endo-procedural presumption, duty of collaboration of the parties in the evidentiary activityAbstract
In procedural systems, the legislator establishes cases in which it assigns evidentiary consequences to the parties’ conduct, which are the fictitious or presumed confession, the presumption of the fact and the absolute presumption; its assignment is based on a reason for being within the framework of the general theory of process and evidence, which is derived from the inadequate actions of the parties that prevent or restrict the handling of the means of evidence, limiting access to the source of evidence and thus preventing the occurrence or non-occurrence of a certain fact from being proven in the process. This is the issue addressed in this article, which aims to determine whether the consequence thus established, consisting in generating a substitute for proof, is the result of non-compliance with a burden by virtue of which a disadvantage is generated as a result of the infringement of a particular interest, or whether it is a matter of non-compliance with a duty that generates a penalty as a result of the infringement of a public interest. The method under which it was developed takes an approach to the validity of law, associated with legal positivism, analyzing the Constitution and the General Procedural Code.
Downloads
References
Arango Rivadeneira, R. (2005). El concepto de derechos sociales fundamentales. Bogotá, Colombia: LEGIS.
Barrios de Ángelis, D. (1979). Teoría del proceso. Buenos Aires: Depalma.
Betti, E. (2000). Teoría general del negocio jurídico. Granada: Editorial Comares.
Boaventura de Sousa, S. (1995). De la mano de Alicia: lo social y lo politico en la posmodernidad. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes.
Calamandrei, P. (1973). Instituciones de derecho procesal civil (Tomo I). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.
Carnelutti, F. (1993). Sistema de derecho procesal civil. Buenos Aires: UTEHA.
Carnelutti, F. (2000). La prueba civil. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Depalma.
Ceballos Velásquez, A. (2015). Curso de relación jurídica procesal (inédito). Medellín.
Colombia. Corte Constitucional. (23 de enero de 2002). Sentencia C-012/02. [MP. Jaime Araujo Rentería].
Colombia. Corte Constitucional. (27 de octubre de 2005). Sentencia T-1098/05. [MP. Rodrigo Escobar Gil]. Recuperado de http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2005/T-1098-05.htm
Colombia. Corte Constitucional, Sala Plena. (8 de febrero de 2005). Expediente D-5324. Bogotá.
Couture, E. (1978). Fundamentos de derecho procesal civil. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Depalma.
Couture, E. (1979). Estudios de derecho procesal civil. El juez, las partes y el proceso (Tomo IV, Volumen 3). Buenos Aires: Depalma.
Díaz, C. A. (1963). Instituciones de Derecho Procesal, Parte general (Tomo I). Buenos Aires: Abelado - Perrot.
Dworkin, R. (1995). Los derechos en serio. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel.
García Villegas, M. y Ceballos Bedoya, M. A. (2016). Democracia, justicia y sociedad. (García Villegas, M. y Ceballos Bedoya, M. A., Edits.). Bogotá: Dejusticia.
García Villegas, M. y Rodríguez, C. (2003). Derecho y sociedad en America Latina: Un debate sobre los estudios críticos. Bogotá: ILSA; Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Hart, H. (1998). El concepto de derecho. Buenos Aires: Abeledo-Perrot.
Instituto Colombiano de Derecho Procesal. (s.f.). Observatorio a la implementación del Código General del Proceso. Recuperado de http://www.cej.org.co/observatoriocgp/
Kelsen, H. (1997). Teoría Pura del Derecho. México: Porrúa.
López Medina, D. E. (2004). Teoría Impura del Derecho. Bogotá: LEGIS, Universidad de los Andes y Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Michelli, G. (2004). La carga de la prueba. Bogotá: Editorial TEMIS.
Quinche Ramírez, M. (2015). Derecho constitucional colombiano. Bogotá: Editorial Temis S.A.
Quintero, B. y Prieto, E. (2008). Teoría General del Derecho Procesal. Bogotá: Editorial Temis S.A.
Rawls, J. (1997). Teoría de la justicia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 José David Posada Botero
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Estudios de Derecho is governed by the following regulation: Political Constitution of Colombia, article 61; Law 23 of 1982, articles 1 and 2; Law 44 of 1993, chapter II, article 6 and chapter IV, article 51; Law 599 of 2000 through which the Penal Code is issued, articles 270, 271 and 272. In addition, the journal is governed by the guidelines of the National Copyright Directorate and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for Colombia. Finally, it abides by Rectoral Resolution 21231 of 5 August, 2005, through which the Statute on Intellectual Property is issued.
Authors who publish in Estudios de Derecho continue to retain their rights, however, they should bear in mind that the contents of the journal are under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license. In this sense, The material created may be distributed, copied and exhibited by third parties if they credit it. No commercial benefit can be obtained.
