Normogram of the burden of preef rule in the Colombian judicial process: Constitutionalization of the burden of proof
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25057/2500672X.1383Keywords:
Nomogram, Constitutionalization, Test load, Static test load, Test load inversion, dynamic test loadAbstract
This research paper presents, first, theoretical evolution of the burden of proof rule. Secondly, a brief analysis is made of the scope of the burden of proof, with reference to the trend of the Council of State, in which there is evidence of a regression or variation around problems related to the responsibility of the State for medical failure. Finally, the methodology was taken into account in the elaboration of the normograma as a peda-gogical tool, beyond its eminently technical nature. This tool is offered as a guide for teachers, students and litigators interested in the constitutionalization of the dynamic burden of proof and its implications for the guarantee of rights such as due process, equality and the effective administration of justice. For the development of this tool is used the method of data analysis and documentary sources such as judgments of the Council of State and the Constitutional Court, and conceptual elaborations of authors such as Joan Picó i Junoy, Xavier Abel Lluch and Manuel Serra Domínguez, which esta-blish aspects relevant to the burden of proof. From this perspective, it is evident that what was initially called the static burden of proof was gradually moving towards a more guarantor concept for the affected, provided that the judge uses the distribution of the dynamic burden of proof and seeks the effectiveness of principles such as solidarity, loyalty, procedural good faith and equality of the parties, so that the proof is provided by those who are in the best position to associate it with the process. From a methodo-logical point of view, the normogram instrument provides relevant information that helps to foster analysis and search capacity on the subject of the constitutionalization of the dynamic burden of proof.
Author Biographies
Maria Victoria Santana Londoño, Institución Universitaria de Envigado
- PhD in Philosophy from UPB, Medellín.
- Master in Philosophy from UPB, Medellín.
- Master in Law from the Universidad de Antioquia.
- Specialist in Social Security Law, Universidad de Antioquia.
- Specialist in Administrative Law, Universidad de Santo Tomás.
- Specialist in Teaching by Competencies, CIESI (Centro Internacional de Estudios Interdisciplinarios
- Full-time professor at the la Institución Universitaria de Envigado (IUE).
- Coordinator of the graduate programs of the Faculty of Legal and Political Sciences of the IUE. mvsantana@correo.iue.edu.co maria.santana@upb.edu.co
Jose Angel Giraldo Ríos, Universidad Santo Tomás
- Lawyer and specialist in Administrative Law, Universidad Santo Tomás, Medellin..
- Director of the Aguadas, Caldas Penitentiary and Corrections Director, Caldas.hj5giraldo@hotmail.com
Delio David Arango Navarro, Corporación Universitaria Remington
- Master in Philosophy, specialist in Philosophy from the upb, Medellín.
- Full-time professor of the Faculty of Legal and Political Sciences and the Department of Education and Humanities of the Corporación Universitaria Remington delio.arango@uniremington.edu.co
References
Colombia. Congreso de la República. (2012, 12 de julio). Ley 1564. Por la cual se expide el Código General del Proceso. Diario Oficial N.º 48 489.
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (1992, 30 de julio). Radicado 6897. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Daniel Suarez Hernández, C. P.).
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (2000, 10 de febrero). Radicado 11878. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Alier Eduardo Hernández Enríquez, C. P.).
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (2004, 1 de julio). Radicado 14969. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Alier Eduardo Hernández Enríquez, C. P.).
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (2006, 31 de agosto). Radicado 15772. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Ruth Stella Correa Palacio, C. P.).
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (2011, 9 de febrero). Radicado 18793. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Mauricio Fajardo Gómez, C. P.).
Colombia. Consejo de Estado. (2011, 8 de junio). Radicado 01357. Sección Tercera, Sala Contencioso-Administrativa (Jaime Orlando Santofimio Gamboa, C. P.).
Colombia. Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (1993, 25 de febrero). Sentencia C-070. (José Gregorio Hernández Galindo, M. P). https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/1993/C-070-93.htm
Colombia. Presidencia de la República. (1970, 21 de septiembre). Decreto 1400. Por el cual se expide el Código de Procedimiento Civil. Diario Oficial N.º 33 150. http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/codigo_procedimiento_civil.html
Colombia. Ministerio de Justicia. (2015). Normograma y gestión documental. https://www.minjusticia.gov.co/Portals/0/Documentos%20Mauricio/informes%20sig/documentos/Capacitaciones/Memoria%20-%20Normograma%20y%20documental.pdf
México. Congreso Constituyente. (1917, 5 de febrero). Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Diario Oficial de la Federación de México.
Picó i Junoy, J. y Abel Lluch, X. (2020). Reformas necesarias de la prueba pericial civil. En J. Picó i Junoy (dir.), La prueba pericial a examen: propuesta de lege ferenda (pp. 279-319). J. M. Bosch.
Priori Posada, G. y Pérez Prieto de las Casas, R. (2012). La carga de la prueba en el proceso laboral. Ius et Veritas, 22(45), 334-345. http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/iusetveritas/article/view/12007
Rosemberg, L. (1955). Tratado de derecho procesal civil (vol. 2). Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.
Sanatorio de Contratación. (s.f.). Normograma. Consultado el 5 de abril de 2021. http://www.sanatoriocontratacion.gov.co/index.php/es/normatividad/normograma
Serra Domínguez, M. (1984). El derecho a la prueba en el proceso civil español. En M. Serra (ed.), Homenaje a Jaime Guasp Delgado (pp. 561-585). Comares.
Taruffo, M. (2009). La prueba. Artículos y conferencias. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Metropolitana.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Nuevo Derecho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors should declare that the article is an original work that has not been totally or partially published in any print or electronic media, which has not been submitted simultaneously to another publication and that is not currently under evaluation in another publication. On the other hand, I leave (we) evidence that the statements made therein are the sole responsibility of the / the authors / is.
All data and references to already published material are properly identified with their respective credit and included in the bibliographical notes and appointments that stand out as such and, in cases that require it, I have the proper authorizations for those with the respective rights; in case of any dispute or claim relating to intellectual property rights, we take responsibility exonerating responsibility to Nuevo Derecho.
If the article is approved for publication, the authors transfer the copyright to the journal New law to publish, distribute electronic copies and included in indexing services, directories or databases of national and international data on Open Access under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial (CC bY-NC-SA) by which the authors retain their copyrights and allow them to others copy and distribute your work provided they recognize the corresponding authorship and the work is not used for purposes commercial.
Therefore, new law does not retain the rights to reproduce or copy (copyright), so the authors will have the final versions, to disseminate them in institutional repositories, personal blogs or any other electronic or print media, with the sole condition to make mention of the original source of publication, in this case Nuevo Derecho.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
