The object of this study is the analysis of standards of proof, which are theoretical statements aimed at establishing the degree of confirmation that a factual hypothesis must reach to be considered sufficiently proven in judicial proceedings. The standards of evidence serve three essential functions: i) to establish indispensable criteria for the justification of evidentiary decisions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence produced; ii) to serve as a guarantee for the parties by providing predictability concerning the adequacy of the evidence they need to present; and iii) primarily to promote the allocation of the risks of error between the parties, depending on the socio-political interests at stake. Common law legal systems have long utilized such models to assess evidentiary sufficiency for rational decision-making on factual matters. Although reconciling legal institutions originating from common law with the legal system of civil law tradition countries, such as Brazil, is challenging, this study seeks to demonstrate that the principles supporting the use of standards of proof in foreign legal contexts are equally applicable to the Brazilian legal framework. The methodology adopted is qualitative, based on doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis. To this end, the research includes a review of works by both national and foreign authors, as well as landmark judicial decisions on the subject. Furthermore, a comparative method will be utilized to examine the application of standards of proof in the Brazilian and U.S. legal systems, highlighting their influences and possible adaptations
Mabelle Palacio, Juan Francisco Mercado Cespedes, Hernando Caraballo
Ante la irrupción de las Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación (TIC’S) en las labores que realizan las personas de forma cotidiana, se ha visto la necesidad de ir generando normas que permitan adaptar estas nuevas dinámicas en el funcionamiento de la sociedad. Así, países como Colombia en los últimos años han puesto en marcha la implementación de normas que han impulsado el uso de estas herramientas digitales en los diferentes escenarios jurídicos, tales como los procesos judiciales. Es por ello que el objetivo principal del presente artículo es identificar la viabilidad y eficacia de la implementación de los NFT´'s (Non-Fungible Tokens) como medio de notificación judicial en procesos de arbitraje en Colombia, los cuales permiten llevar a cabo un seguimiento para que la notificación pueda llegar apropiadamente a los correos electrónicos de las partes, teniendo la certeza de que han sido recibidos por el respectivo destinatario, de forma segura, eficaz y descentralizada.
The increase in international trade relations and the opportunities offered by the digital world raise great concern about the number of resources and time invested in dispute resolution. The creation of new markets and digital disruption bring with them an unprecedented kind of disputes, which require agile and accessible mechanisms for their resolution. Web3 brings a new dimension to the business world: the Metaverse overflows all existing boundaries for companies, brands, and social relationships. However, new opportunities for social and economic interaction necessarily bring legal challenges: How to deal with the potential disputes brought about by the synergy between the real world and the digital sphere? What kind of disputes are we facing? What is the most efficient method for their resolution? Is arbitration flexible enough to consolidate itself as the main solution? Considering the challenges brought by Web3, disputes rising both within and as a result of the Metaverse require resolution methods that are up to their challenges. In the absence, at present, of a universal law applicable to digital relations and of a global meta-jurisdiction,arbitration is postulated as a mechanism that could play a central role. However, the arbitration legal community will have to rethink fundamental issues in the face of this paradigmshift.
La presente ponencia pretende abordar los retos jurídicos que, desde una perspectiva del derecho a la prueba, plantean las nuevas formas de contratación inteligente (smart contracts). El desarrollo de las emergentes tecnologías disruptivas, propias de un mercado digital y globalizado, ha originado una nueva problemática en los juzgados y tribunales, relativa al valor probatorio de la cadena de bloques. como sistema que permite almacenar información de forma auténtica. También de los denominados contratos inteligentes, auténticos códigos informáticos que permiten la ejecución automatizada de secuencias previamente programadas. Se abordarán, por tanto, los clásicos problemas surgidos en la teoría general de obligaciones y contratos en relación con los smart contracts, en particular las controversias probatorias relativas a la identidad de los sujetos intervinientes, capacidad y legitimación, derecho aplicable, y tutela en la esfera del derecho de consumo.
espanolEste articulo compara algunas expresiones clave y palabras de cuatro constituciones de la region andina en paises que han adoptado el tipo de estado unitario y el modelo de organizacion territorial frances, desde entonces y hasta ahora, desarrollando procesos diferentes de descentralizacion (Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru). Las palabras: plurinacional, multicultural, comunitario, autonomo, autonomia, unitario y indivisible seran contadas (vamos a comparar cuantas veces cada palabra aparece en los textos constitucionales) y su significado sera analizado en relacion con los procesos de descentralizacion de cada pais. Estos procesos seran analizados por medio de un dialogo entre ciencia politica y derecho comparado para entender mejor las tendencias de la descentralizacion en America latina y su impacto sobre la circulacion del modelo frances. EnglishThis article aims to compare some key statements and words from four constitutions in the Latin American region of countries that initially adopted the unitary form of state and the territorial organization of the French model, while subsequently developing different decentralization processes (Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru). The words: plurinational, multicultural, communitary, autonomous, autonomy, unitary and indivisible will be counted (comparing the number of times each word appears in the constitutional texts) and their meaning will be analyzed in relation to decentralization processes of each country. We analyze this process through a dialog between political science and comparative law to better understand the Latin American decentralization trend and its impact on the circulation of the French model.
This chapter considers the burdens borne by both parties when an issue of fact is at stake. It explains how the nature of a burden in the law of evidence is obscured by the use of the term in a number of different senses. The two principal senses are the burden of adducing evidence and the burden of proving facts. In relation to each, questions arise as to its incidence and discharge. The chapter considers the allocation of the burden in these two senses, at common law and under statutory provisions, and the effects of presumptions of law or agreement of the parties. Finally, this chapter is concerned with the extent of the two burdens, and the way in which the burden of proof has to be explained to the jury.
espanolSe delimita la nocion de contrato inteligente, para a continuacion subrayar sus beneficios para las partes en materia de cumplimiento, desde la optica de la tecnologia de registros distribuidos. Asimismo se desmitifican algunos falsos inconvenientes de la figura, para despues plantear las claves de su naturaleza juridica, proceso de formacion e intervencion notarial en su funcionamiento, registro, archivo y protocolizacion, y eficacia probatoria. EnglishThroughout the paper is defined the legal smart contract, outlining its benefits for the contracting parties within the scope of contract performance, from the distributed-ledger technology assumptions. Once demistified some counterfeit disadvantages of smart contracts, and after outlining its main virtues, we discuss the options for its legal qualification, the efficacy of its notarization, and evidential rules, within the scope of the Spanish legal system
This article aims to compare some key statements and words from four constitutions in the Latin American region of countries that initially adopted the unitary form of state and the territorial organization of the French model, while subsequently developing different decentralization processes (Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru). The words: plurinational, multicultural, communitary, autonomous, autonomy, unitary and indivisible will be counted (comparing the number of times each word appears in the constitutional texts) and their meaning will be analyzed in relation to decentralization processes of each country. We analyze this process through a dialog between political science and comparative law to better understand the Latin American decentralization trend and its impact on the circulation of the French model
espanolLos Smart contract son aquellos contratos que se ejecutan de manera automatica cuando se da alguna circunstancia que se hubiera estipulado. No hay accion humana, si uno de los contratantes o el empleado no cumple con lo estipulado en el contrato, sera el mismo contrato quien, automaticamente y sin accion humana, se ejecute, pudiendo llegar a resolver un contrato con la consecuente perdida del bien o que se produzca un despido automatico. Las posibilidades son ilimitadas. EnglishThe smart contracts are contracts that are executed automatically, when there is some circumstance that would have been stipulated. There is no human action, if one of the contracting parties or the employee does not comply with what is stipulated in the contract, it will just the contract that, automatically and without human action, will be able to solve a contract, with the loss of the good or an automatic dismissal. The possibilities are unlimited.
The law speaks clearly on the standards of proof, but listeners often misunderstand its words. This article tries, with some common sense, to explain how the law expects its standards to be applied, and then to show how the law thereby avoids such complications as the conjunction paradox. First, in accordance with belief function theory, the factfinder should start at zero belief. Given imperfect evidence, the factfinder will end up retaining a fair amount of uncommitted belief. As evidence comes in, though, the factfinder will form a belief in the truth of the disputed fact but also form a disbelief, or a belief in the fact’s falsity. At the close of evidence, the standard of proof requires only comparing belief and disbelief. For example, the civil standard, rather than asking whether a fact more likely than not happened according to traditional probability theory, asks whether the factfinder believes the fact more than the factfinder believes that the fact did not happen. The burdened party need not push proof above 50% by dispelling the phantoms of every possibility, while the opponent need not generate a competing version of truth but can instead rely on denial to demand that the burdened party generate a belief.Second, belief and disbelief being nonadditive partial truths, the mathematical result is that one cannot combine beliefs by traditional probability theory, as by using the product rule designed for conjunction of betting odds. Instead, one must use multivalent logic, including its rule that conjoined likelihood equals the likelihood of the least likely element. Linking the elements in a chain tells a story that is as likely as its weakest link. Consequently, if each element of a claim or defense passes the standard of proof, the conjunction of elements will pass the standard of proof. The conjunction paradox thus vaporizes for factfinding, just as the law has always maintained. The law has found the way to decide in accord with our best knowledge of the facts.
María José Vázquez Cueto, Francisco Gutiérrez López
espanolEl funcionamiento de la Administracion de Justicia en Espana es actualmente muy cuestionado. Muchos profesionales de la justicia sostienen que esta es la Cenicienta de las administraciones y que es la carencia de medios la causa que justificaria el mal funcionamiento, solicitando, por ello, mayor gasto como medio preferente para mejorarlo. Para conocer si esta afirmacion se puede sustentar cientificamente, hemos analizado 3 indicadores troncales (gasto publico, medios personales a su servicio y funcionamiento del sistema judicial) tanto a nivel nacional como de las Comunidades Autonomas, porque debe tenerse en cuenta que la organizacion de la Administracion de Justicia en Espana esta desconcentrada y descentralizada, lo que condiciona su gestion. EnglishThe functioning of the administration of Spanish justice is being increasingly questioned. Many legal practitioners think that is the Cinderella of the Public Administration and that is the lack of financial resources the reason of its bad malfunctions. In order of to know if these affirmations have scientific basis we have analyzed three focus indicators (public spending, justice personal resource, judicial system operation) both national level as autonomous communities level, because it have to be take in a count that the administration organization of justice in Spain is decentralized and deconcentrated, and these reasons affect their management.
Million of dollars are moved worldwide by electronic contracting daily, obviously its legal regulation has been the subject of considerable debates within the contemporary commercial and procedural law. It is not only about analyzing the substantial perspective of electronic contract, but also the possibility of its demand and effectiveness in procedural stages. This article analyzes the principles that impact electronic contracting, with its own jurisprudential and normative development in the Colombian context; this requires a brief overview about the importance of the principles in law and their functions, secondly, an introduction to the phenomenon of electronic contracting, and finally with the detailed study of the principles. Later it will be analyzed its application in bitcoins.
The public administration of the environment in Colombia is characterized by decentralized\n. Based on this form of organization , renewable natural resources are\norganized under criteria ecosystem unit subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the\nregional autonomous corporations CAR. The CAR is part of what in Colombia\nis called the National Environmental System, SINA, and although they are not\nsubject to administrative hierarchies by the Ministry of environment, discusses the\ntrue scope of its administrative autonomy. The discussion about the autonomy of\nthe CAR has created tensions between the central level and the decentralized level\nto the point of being necessary the intervention of the constitutional court to set\nlimits to the possibility for the Ministry to intervene in the proceedings of the CAR,\nand to define those competencies that the CAR can act autonomously.
With its fundamental decision In re Winship (1970) the United States Supreme Court set the constitutional basis of the standard of persuasion in criminal trials. The long standing standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was selected by the Court as the bedrock that protects the values at stake in a criminal case.Soon after this decision a dispute started between scholars and Courts on whether the reasonable doubt standard" ought to be defined by jury instructions or could be considered a matter of the jurors' original understanding," that is a self-evident" concept. Depending on the solution of the dispute, failing to define the standard through suitable instruction could amount to a reversible constitutional error (i.e. a constitutional error that imposes reversal).In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ( prova al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio") in the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. The law does not define the standard but just states it.Even prior to this, in Italy, the standard at issue had been applied in important decisions by the Corte di Cassazione and some scholars had strongly argued the need of its introduction in the Italian criminal system. Both the Italian courts and Italian scholars had impliedly or explicitly referred to the U.S. legal experience for guidance.The U.S. and Italian criminal systems are notably different. Apart from the differences in substantial criminal law, those in criminal procedure are pronounced. According to these differences it is possible to argue that the same standard of persuasion might be given a different regime of application in the two systems. The present paper doesn't deal with this last issue, but is based on the premise that the concept itself of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has the same significance in the two systems.The aim of this paper is to show that proof beyond a reasonable doubt," far from being a self-evident concept, needs accurate explanation.In order to do that, the paper studies the Italian and the U.S. legal cultures on the subject; that is, using Lawrence M. Friedman's words, the ideas, values, expectations and attitudes towards the standard - which some public or some part of the public holds."First, it focuses on the so called external legal culture" remembering that this kind of legal culture has, through the institution of the jury, a peculiar weight in the application of the law in the U.S. criminal system. At this stage, the study also takes into account the ideas of the standard" that emerge from movies, literature and newspapers.Afterwards the paper quickly focuses on the so called internal legal culture," studying relevant decisions and doctrinal contributions to the subject.The consideration of the Italian and U.S. legal cultures leads to the conclusion that there is widespread confusion on the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" even within the community of lawyers and judges. For a correct understanding of the standard there is the need for a definition and, especially, for the specification of its rationales and its contents.Thus, the last goal of the paper is to point out the fundamental traits of the reasonable doubt standard with the help of the legal cultures previously assessed. A hint is also offered by some linguistic and further sociological consideration.The hope is to contribute, even slightly, to the understanding and therefore the application of such an important rule.
Publisher Summary
This chapter presents the several case studies related to the burden of proof. The first case deals with “In re Winship.” The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has a vital role the criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction. The other case presented in the chapter is of Victor versus Nebraska and State versus Eichelberger. The Victor case discusses several aspects of “reasonable doubt”. The Eichelberger versus State (Ohio) case discusses the evidence of an affirmative defense and preponderance of the evidence. The Ohio Code provides that every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution.
In its 1987 decision in Martin v. Ohio,' the United States Supreme Court again engaged in lawmaking for burdens of proof. Although the Court ratified the state's rule in this case,2 the Court has, in the past, prescribed different rules as requirements of due process.3 The Court has justified its lawmaking by asserting that the burden of proof should apportion the risks of error in a way that favors the more important interests at stake in the trial.4 If an erroneous finding of fact F would harm one set of interests more than an erroneous finding of not-F would harm the other, the burden of proof should lie with the party who alleges F, and the standard of proof for F should be high enough to reduce the risk of an erroneous finding proportionately. This idea is founded in Bayesian decision theory,5 in which it is formalized as a rule for choice in conditions of uncertainty. It is a cornerstone of the Court's