UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

La legitimidad epistemológica del poder punitivo en el estado constitucional: verdad procesal, prueba y control de la discrecionalidad judicial

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.71112/9sz1rs96

Authors

Manuel Mesías Angulo Yánez

Reported year

2026

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:19:30.281511+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:19:30.281511+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

Universidad Casa Grande

Documentary abstract — original language

The legitimacy of punitive power is commonly examined through the legality of criminal offences, punishment, and procedural safeguards; however, every criminal judgment also presupposes factual claims that must be rationally justified. This article analyzes the epistemic conditions required to legitimize the production of procedural truth and their implications for constitutional control of punitive power. A qualitative legal-documentary study was conducted using doctrinal, hermeneutic, analytical, and comparative methods. Ecuadorian constitutional and criminal provisions, decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, classical legal scholarship, and recent scientific literature on evidence, legal reasoning, cognitive bias, safeguards, and victim participation were examined. The analysis shows that procedural truth should be understood neither as an infallible reproduction of reality nor as a discretionary construction by the adjudicator, but as a rationally corroborated factual hypothesis produced within institutionally controlled procedures. The study argues that the presumption of innocence, adversarial proceedings, judicial reasoning, appellate review, and rules governing the admission and assessment of evidence simultaneously perform legal and epistemic functions. Accordingly, the article proposes a model of epistemically controlled judicial discretion, recognizing inevitable interpretive margins while subjecting them to reinforced requirements of justification, evidence, and constitutional compatibility.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W7214807824

DOI

10.71112/9sz1rs96

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

article

Jurisdictions studied — explicit sources

EC

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.71112/9sz1rs96
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7214807824

Documented bibliographic relations

Source-declared references and links; they do not establish legal support or UGLC qualification. Up to 20 outgoing references are displayed.

• openalex:w2585839414 · CITES
• openalex:w3091931061 · CITES
• openalex:w3130146866 · CITES
• openalex:w3148711063 · CITES
• openalex:w3157479619 · CITES
• openalex:w3174444864 · CITES
• openalex:w3184711450 · CITES
• openalex:w3191214624 · CITES
• openalex:w3206621840 · CITES
• openalex:w4206768584 · CITES
• openalex:w4233237171 · CITES
• openalex:w4247705233 · CITES
• openalex:w4255701938 · CITES
• openalex:w4284674482 · CITES
• openalex:w4293084051 · CITES
• openalex:w4307218797 · CITES
• openalex:w4312435350 · CITES
• openalex:w4312531690 · CITES
• openalex:w4379055632 · CITES
• openalex:w4382698886 · CITES

0 incoming references within the detected corpus

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.