UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

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

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.71112/9sz1rs96

Auteurs

Manuel Mesías Angulo Yánez

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

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

Dernière observation des métadonnées

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

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Universidad Casa Grande

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

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.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7214807824

DOI

10.71112/9sz1rs96

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

EC

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

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

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• 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 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.