Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 50

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-20

DOI https://doi.org/10.31876/er.v8i49.861

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the

rules of sound judgement

Análisis jurídico de la valoración de la prueba en base a las reglas de la sana

crítica

Glenda Betzabe Avila Perez *

Karina Dayana Cardenas Paredes*

Received: Octiber 03, 2023

Approved: Febrary 12, 2024

Abstract

The legal analysis of the evaluation of evidence in the Ecuadorian

context focuses on the application of sound criticism on the

evidentiary means provided by the parties against the decision

adopted by the judges. The main objective of the study is to analyze

the lack of normative and doctrinal development regarding the rules

of sound criticism, by establishing its clarification and definition to

ensure an objective evaluation of evidence in judicial proceedings. In

Ruling No. 305-17-sep-cc case No. 1597-16-ep (2017), the

Constitutional Court highlighted the importance of applying sound

criticism in a consistent and motivated manner, through the support

of prudential rules of a legal nature. The case law, in this case,

highlights the correct application of the rules of sound criticism by the

judges of the Labor Chamber of the National Court of Justice. The

judgment illustrates the importance of clearly motivating judicial

decisions, ensuring transparency and legitimacy. It concludes that the

absence of clear criteria for the implementation of sound criticism in

Ecuadorian law highlights the need for legislative revision. The

importance of establishing specific parameters to guarantee a well-

founded, objective and impartial evaluation of evidence in the judicial

sphere is emphasized.

Keywords:

Justice, reasoning, sound criticism, evidence assessment

* Law student at the Universidad Tecnológica

Indoamérica.

gavila2@indoamerica.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8517-1953

Lawyer of the Courts and Tribunals of the

Republic of Ecuador, Master in Procedural Law

and Oral Litigation,

* Master in Criminological Sciences and

Security, Professor and Researcher at

Universidad Indoamérica.

karinacardenas@uti.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7517-6623

Ávila, G., Cárdenas K. (2024) Legal

analysis of the valuation of evidence

based on the rules of sound

criticism. Espirales Multidisciplinary

Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (49),

1-20.

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

Introduction

When addressing the procedure for conflict resolution, it is crucial to consider the

mechanisms that the judge evaluates when issuing various resolutions, as well as the

precepts on the basis of which such evaluation is carried out. Evidence, as a fundamental

legal instrument used in the evaluation of facts, has been the subject of study over time

and is distinguished by specific characteristics, such as its usefulness, relevance and

conduciveness. In Ecuadorian law, as established in the General Organic Code of

Proceedings ( COGEP ), it is specifically classified into documentary, testimonial and

expert evidence.

Taruffo (2008) has pointed out that it is crucial for the courts to confirm the veracity of

the facts in dispute, and that such veracity should be assessed by considering the

relevant and admissible means of evidence. Consequently, evidence should be

considered as the means capable and necessary to verify the authenticity of the relevant

facts, in order to achieve one of the primary objectives in the administration of justice.

In order to understand the purpose of the evidentiary means, it is essential to analyze

the grounds on which the judge relies to administer justice. This purpose is not limited

only to resolving the problem in question, but to ensure that such resolution is based

on an adequate analysis of the evidence presented to arrive at the truth of the facts,

always considering the application of procedural principles.

Resumen

El análisis jurídico de la valoración de la prueba en el contexto

ecuatoriano se centra en la aplicación de la sana crítica sobre las los

medios probatorios dispuestos por las partes frente a la decisión

adoptada por los jueces. El objetivo principal del estudio es analizar

la falta de desarrollo normativo y doctrinario respecto a las reglas de

la sana crítica, mediante el establecimiento de su clarificación y

definición para garantizar una evaluación objetiva de la prueba en los

procedimientos judiciales. En la Sentencia N.º 305-17-sep-cc caso N.º

1597-16-ep (2017), la Corte Constitucional destacó la importancia de

aplicar la sana crítica de manera coherente y motivada, mediante el

respaldo de normas cautelares de carácter jurídico. La jurisprudencia,

en este caso, resalta la correcta aplicación de las reglas de la sana

crítica por parte de los jueces de la Sala de lo Laboral de la Corte

Nacional de Justicia. La sentencia ilustra la importancia de motivar de

manera clara las decisiones judiciales, asegurando transparencia y

legitimidad. Se concluye que la ausencia de criterios claros para la

implementación de la sana crítica en la normativa ecuatoriana resalta

la necesidad de una revisión legislativa. Se destaca la importancia de

establecer parámetros específicos para garantizar una evaluación

fundamentada, objetiva e imparcial de la prueba en el ámbito judicial.

Palabras clave:

Justicia, motivación, sana critica, valoración de la

prueba

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

Thus, the judge, as the highest authority in charge of guaranteeing an adequate

procedure, is responsible for applying the legal regulations and, in particular, the rights

of individuals, as established in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. The judge

must ensure respect for the parties involved and apply the legally granted tools. In the

context of the evaluation of evidence, the judicial authority is responsible for applying

the pertinent mechanisms when carrying out the corresponding evaluation of each of

the evidentiary means presented by the parties. However, when referring specifically to

the system of valuation of evidence in relation to Sound Criticism, a lack of development

has been identified in the COGEP, in Article 164, has established the obligation of the

valuation of evidence based on the rules of sound criticism of the judge.

Sound criticism is, in addition to logic, the correct appreciation of certain propositions

of experience that every man makes use of in life. These conclusions do not have the

strictness of traditional logical principles, but are contingent and variable in relation to

time and place. The progress of science is made of a series of maxims of experience

repealed by other more exact ones; and even in the face of the principles of traditional

logic, modern logic shows how human thought is in constant progress in the way of

reasoning (Gonzales Castillo, 2006, p.97).

Although these parameters are not expressed in said normative body, the doctrine,

court decisions and jurisprudence have seen the need to regulate them, thus, it is

important to analyze the lack of normative development with respect to the sound

criticism of the judge, and the rules inherent to this system, such as rationality,

objectivity, experience and coherence, it is necessary to deepen the knowledge about

its implication in the way of assessing the evidential means to be requested, practiced

and incorporated in the different types of procedures. This is necessary to prevent

subjectivity and, therefore, arbitrariness at the time of such evaluation.

García (2011) has emphasized that, when stating the concept of objectivity, it is essential

to consider the normative. In other words, objectivity is approached from a legal

perspective, but it is also linked to the general interest. The administration of justice

responds to the needs in accordance with what is established by law, which implies that

the jurisdictional authority is responsible for imparting justice, basing its decisions

normatively and disregarding parameters that could be resolved through subjectivity or

valuations from a personal perspective. For this reason, it is considered one of the most

important principles, such as legality, which is also correlated with impartiality.

When examining sound criticism, it is essential to take into account its foundation in

rationality, as indicated in the study by Gonzales Castillo (2006). The evaluation and

persuasion within this framework must be supported by logic, which clearly

differentiates it from the conviction that arises from feelings, emotionality or subjective

impressions. The arguments presented by the judge must be logically interconnected,

so that they lead naturally and without forcing towards a specific conclusion, and his

decisions must be comparable with the standards of logic.

This gives rise to the identification of a problem in the evaluation of evidence,

evidencing a gap in the lack of a legal precept that regulates the scientific methodology

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

to be followed by the judge when evaluating evidence in non-criminal matters. This lack

could be affecting the adequate application of the sound criticism system.

The main objective of the research is the analysis of the principle of sound criticism of

the judge, where through various criteria, it seeks to establish a doctrinal development,

which is justified by the need to have an adequate regulation and parameters on which

judges can be based. Furthermore, it is intended that this research serves as a reference

for the legislator to consider the need to integrate these criteria to the procedural norm,

thus facilitating a correct evaluation of the evidence and, consequently, the resolution

of conflicts.

Evidence today has been the result of a significant development throughout history,

since it has been necessary to highlight the different periods of it in order to define the

origin, usefulness and relevance of what the doctrine has expressed about the means

of proof. In ancient times, the Roman Law had a great influence on evidence, since in

the different procedures that were carried out at that time, evidence was born as a

mechanism that not only had as a fundamental objective to clarify the facts, but also

had the need to regulate what was ethically allowed. Taking into account that Roman

Law formed its system also based on custom, different means of evidence qualified as

licit that could be practiced in the pertinent procedural phase are manifested and

expressly defined.

a) witness (testis), whose declarations were the testimonies (testimo nia) or depositiones

testium b) the documents (documenta or scripto) that have, as modalities, the writing

(scriptura) and the books (codices); c) the declarations of the parties; d) the oath

(jusjurandum); e) the confession (confessio or professio); f) the interrogation

(interrogationes or inquisitio); g) the judicial inspection (inspectio); and h) the expertise

(pericia). (Pinto, 2000, pp.765-766)

Throughout the years, the conception of evidence in the judicial sphere has undergone

several modifications, despite the fact that since Roman Law there was already a clear

conception of the usefulness and the means of proof that were legal. In the Middle

Ages, certain means of proof were established that had a significant influence of the

Catholic Church, even the result of a fact being considered true or false depended on

actions that involved cruel treatments as a means to reach the truth of the facts, based

on a divine judgment as a result of God's will. On the other hand, mechanisms that had

already been used in ancient times were maintained, as determined by Guijón (1961)

these were "the witnesses, the oath, the document, the ordeals and the inquiries" (p.

27). Thus, when it came to a trial, those who were being the accused party in the process

had the power to prove their innocence through these means. However, clearly,

depending on the means determined for the resolution of the case, it was not always

objective, which did not evidence the end of justice of the Law.

Etymologically, the word proof - as well as probo - derives from the Latin word probus,

which means good, honest; therefore, what is proven is good, correct, authentic. We

can conclude at this point that the conception of proof lies in a special procedural

activity, whose product of such activity is, to produce the set of motives or reasons,

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

which, from the means provided by the parties, are deduced and which provides the

judge with the knowledge of the facts, for the purposes of the process (Artavia & Picado,

2018, p.1).

When approaching the context of evidence today, the different periods of history stand

out, since the establishment of evidence and the various means of proof presented over

time have represented a significant evolution in law. This is one of the most important

factors that make up the process. In this case, when referring to the analysis in non-

criminal matters, although the guilt of the person in the process is not discussed, a

question arises as to the responsibility or not of the parties involved.

According to Taruffo quoted by Cárdenas Paredes (2022), it is considered that: judicial

evidence develops a demonstrative function, in that it provides a cognitive and rational

basis for the selection that the judge makes by individualizing an attestable and truthful

version of the relevant facts of the case, and rationally justifying such choice (p. 176).

The main function of the evidentiary means, therefore, is to convince the judge of the

facts established in the claim or answer to the same, so that, through the practice of the

evidence, the judges evaluate and analyze all the evidence as a whole, and, based on

sound criticism, make a reasoned, substantiated and justified decision.

The evidence evidences an important aspect of possibility, that is to say, it grants the

parties the opportunity to have the tools to defend themselves against the facts alleged

against them. In this context, the evidence contributes to the process, not only helps to

support the theory of the parties, but also provides knowledge to the jurisdictional

authority, who is the substantial party that directs the process, the knowledge of the

legal truth.

It is important to mention that the etymological birth of the word evidence

demonstrates the importance of evidencing the alleged facts. Therefore, Ecuadorian

law must be in accordance, not only to the COGEP but also to the Constitution, as the

highest hierarchical norm in the country; to which the procedural activity must adhere.

No one disputes the importance of evidence in the legal system. Without an evidentiary

system, disputes would be at the whim of the judge; this would mean that the subjective

rights of individuals would have no external effectiveness. A fair process, the right of

defense and the guarantee of rights in general, would be practically impossible without

a system of evidence; indeed, it would give rise to anarchy and insecurity, especially

with regard to commerce. Evidence gives character to the process and supports the

subjective right of individuals (Rivera, 2011, p. 30).

Having understood this, it is important to point out the purpose that the legislator in

Ecuador has given to the evidence, through the COGEP (2015) where it is established

"The purpose of the evidence is to lead the judge to the conviction of the facts and

circumstances in dispute" (art. 158). Therefore, this mechanism directly seeks that the

jurisdictional authority, through the different evidentiary means, determines whether the

facts presented are true or false. That is to say, its purpose is to convince the facts, since

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

there is a latent possibility that a series of questions surrounding the fact or situation

may arise.

Due to these circumstances that may arise, the judge must evaluate each and every one

of the evidentiary means duly integrated in the process, as long as they comply with the

provisions of the Law. Among these means are Documentary Evidence, Testimonial

Evidence and Expert Evidence, which are established within the COGEP. These means,

according to their nature, must attend to the specific nature of the fact that seeks to be

proven, as long as they comply with the requirements of usefulness, pertinence and

conduciveness. These characteristics are fundamental, since they must support the

evidence, helping the judge to establish his decision in the case.

The valuation of evidence is one of the most relevant aspects to be debated, in view of

the fact that, within COGEP (2015) limits only to the following:

In order for the evidence to be appreciated by the judge, it must be requested,

practiced and incorporated within the terms set forth in this Code. The evidence must

be appreciated as a whole, in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, leaving aside

the solemnities prescribed in the substantive law for the existence or validity of certain

acts. The judge will have the obligation to express in his or her decision, the evaluation

of all the evidence that has served to justify his or her decision (art. 164).

It is important to mention that the regulations expressly determine the treatment of

evidence, since it is necessary to ensure its legality. Requesting, practicing and

exhibiting, not only confers to the process characteristics of transparency, but, for this

same reason, different constitutional principles are complied with, paying special

attention to due process. This allows the opposing party to exercise its right to

contradict, since it has had knowledge of the evidence in a timely manner, within the

legally established time.

Although the evaluation of evidence has not been expressly regulated, the judge

recognizes that the criteria to be applied must meet the characteristics of impartiality.

The aim is to have the ability to consider the evidence, both of the plaintiff and the

defendant, and not simply apply personal criteria that may influence the decision

making, affecting the resolution of the case, which is why:

The evaluation of the evidence should not be the expression of a simple subjective

belief of the judge, but such "that the facts and evidence that have been submitted to

his judgment, if put to the consideration of any other disinterested and reasonable

citizen, should result in the same certainty that they produced for the judge. This is what

we call the social character of conviction". This function is perhaps the most delicate of

the process, especially for the judge to whom it is entrusted, because the parties are in

this respect mere collaborators. The fate of justice depends on the rightness or

wrongness of the appreciation of the evidence, in most cases (Escobar, 2010, p.46).

The author clearly identifies the need for the judge not to base his decision on criteria

of subjectivity, but rather, this assessment should be made in such a way that results are

obtained in a specific way in order to administer justice, to avoid this subjectivity,

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

parameters should be taken into account that govern the assessment of evidence on

criteria that should be based on Sound Criticism.

However, when speaking of the valuation of evidence based on Sound Criticism,

parameters are determined which, in an exhaustive manner, have not been

contemplated in the norm and, therefore, the possibility of establishing considerations

that may be open to arbitrary decisions is opened. This implies that the judge may base

his decision solely on his own considerations. The need for the existence of regulated

parameters in the law would avoid the existence of legal loopholes, since, as mentioned

above, the COGEP only mentions that the evidence must be assessed as a whole and

in accordance with the rules of sound criticism, here is where the main question arises:

What are the rules of sound criticism?

Despite the fact that the Ecuadorian procedural law, although it has identified the

treatment of evidence for its presentation in the process and has established the

mechanism by which it must be evaluated, it only establishes the "rules of sound

criticism" without subsequent legislation that determines what these rules are. This may

imply the existence of a legal problem and, therefore, of a legal vacuum that provides

openness and freedom to the judge for the evaluation of the evidence. However, it is

important to determine the relevance of an adequate preparation of the judge, based

on the principle of iura novit curia. Although this possibility is open, it should be

regulated, beyond establishing a system with facts that give a specific result, so it is

essential that these rules are adjusted to the sense and purpose of law.

Given the infinite number of possibilities and, therefore, the endless number of results,

it would not be possible to establish a scientific method as such. However, it is possible

to establish parameters on which the rules should govern the evaluation of evidence.

This would provide certainty that the jurisdictional authority will not only apply the rule

correctly, but will also take into account such parameters for its decision. Doctrinally, it

has been determined in such a way that several authors have pronounced on sound

criticism and the rules inherent to it:

The Sound Criticism, on the other hand, is an advance since it leaves the necessary

freedom to the judge so that he can find out and assess what is necessary to rule

according to reality, of course, without this meaning arbitrariness, since he is bound to

the rules of logic, psychology, technique and the rules of experience and, in addition,

he must motivate his ruling (Angulo, 2016, p. 52).

The system of valuation of evidence according to sound criticism is one of the

fundamental pillars, which gives way to the motivation, being important its existence as

a system, and its use, as the way in which it can be verified that those parameters used

by the judge have been made in such a way that, not only can support this decision, but

that, when executing it, mechanisms that surround the fact technically and that, through

experience, allow to be motivated, must be immersed. It has also been established that:

It is a method of valuation of evidence and substantiation of the sentence in which the

judge will eventually apply, depending on the case, certain laws of nature, rules,

principles and maxims of human knowledge, to ascertain the truth or certainty of the

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

fact, with which the decision will be made and explained in the sentence (Alvarenga

Vásquez, 2017, p. 34).

Sound criticism goes beyond a simple scientific application, as would other systems of

evidence assessment that have been developed over time, this system incorporates

various methods, which also integrates an intuitive assessment by the judge, related to

the "laws of nature". This refers to principles inherent to logic and morality, closely

linked to experience. Sound Criticism is presented as a broader and more flexible

approach, which not only relies on scientific aspects, but also incorporates intuitive

elements and fundamental ethical principles related to logic and morality, in close

connection with human experience, a criterion that is also related to that mentioned by

Couture (1958) determining that:

The rules of sound criticism are, above all, the rules of correct human understanding. In

them, the rules of logic interfere with the rules of the judge's experience. Both

contribute equally to the magistrate's ability to analyze the evidence (whether of

witnesses, experts, judicial inspection, confession in cases where it is not plain and

simple) according to sound reason and an experimental knowledge of things. The judge

who must decide according to sound criticism is not free to reason at will, discretionally,

arbitrarily. This way of acting would not be sound criticism, but free conviction. Sound

criticism is the union of logic and experience, without excessive abstractions of

intellectual order, but also without forgetting those precepts that philosophers call

mental hygiene, tending to ensure the most accurate and effective reasoning (p. 271).

Therefore, the evaluation of evidence beyond a general statement, should support

important parameters, being logic and experience criteria on which they interrelate with

each other, to correctly conclude the usefulness, relevance and conduciveness of the

evidence provided to the case, with these parameters the doctrine relates these rules

of sound criticism, even pronouncing on the development of the different systems of

evaluation of evidence existing over time, determining that:

(...) the sound criticism arises as a middle ground or eclectic solution, against the

arbitrariness of the laws and the judge, being conceived to technically grant the capacity

to the administrator of justice to value the evidence in all its spectrum. However, certain

rules are imposed, which will be of strict compliance and observance by the judge, such

as logic, experience and scientific knowledge (Jara Vásquez, 2021, p.30).

The importance given to sound criticism as a system for evaluating evidence evidences

the need to regulate even these criteria, which apparently could determine that the

judge, in a free manner, can make such evaluation. However, it is important to establish

this system as an intermediate between what would have been, to value the evidence

strictly according to what is established by law and to grant total freedom to the judge

for the issuance of these criteria. Once the Sound Criticism has been understood in the

procedural sphere as a system of valuation of evidence, it is possible to determine the

existence of rules inherent to it. When analyzing the similarities they share with the

definitions mentioned by legal scholars, it can be mentioned that the rules of sound

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

criticism integrate with greater relevance logic, experience, reasonableness and

objectivity.

Materials and methods

In the context of sound criticism, it constitutes the proper appreciation of propositions

of experience and recognizes the flexibility of conclusions based on facts. In addition, a

balance is sought between logical rigor and the contingent nature of legal conclusions,

so that it is possible to recognize the constant evolution of human thought and progress

in the way of reasoning. For Pillajo (2017):

Legal logic postulates that any interpretation that leads to absurdity must be rejected,

and the most rational decision must be chosen, that is to say, to convert an abstract

general right into a concrete right. This concrete right is issued by the Judge in a

sentence and for this it is necessary to make a legal logical analysis, a work of

interpretation, apply the law and analyze that this law moves in the Legal System.

Thus, in order to apply logic on evidence it is necessary to examine how traditional

logical principles interact with applied logic in the assessment of evidence, in other

words, how does one balance logical rigor with the contingent nature of conclusions

based on experience?

Experience, on the other hand, links the consideration of previous knowledge and

lessons derived from life. Now, in a legal environment, this action implies the application

of maxims of experience to evaluate the credibility and relevance of the evidence

presented. Judges use these maxims to discern the veracity of the facts and in order to

recognize the evolution of knowledge that adapts to scientific development, so that it

can affect the perception of experience over time. (Coloma and Aguero, 2014). In this

case, the judges ask themselves the question: How is the evolution of knowledge and

science considered in the evaluation of experience?

Reasonableness encompasses the application of logical and fair criteria to evaluate the

validity and consistency of the evidence presented. Thus, judges must determine

whether the conclusions drawn from the evidence are logically plausible and consistent

with the facts presented. This approach ensures that judicial decisions are fair and based

on a rational evaluation of the available evidence. The purpose of ensuring compliance

with this approach is to avoid arbitrary or subjective judgments (Rivera and Rojas, 2020).

Because of the above, reasonableness serves as a safeguard for the integrity of the

judicial process.

Objectivity in the evaluation of evidence implies impartiality and the application of

normative criteria in judicial decision-making. From the legal perspective, objectivity is

related to conformity to the law and the general interest. Judges must base their

decisions on normative criteria, which allows them to dispense with subjective

judgments or personal assessments. This approach ensures that the administration of

justice responds to needs in accordance with the law and thus contributes to the fairness

and legitimacy of the judicial system.

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

In Ecuador, the expert evidence is raised by an expert with sufficient legal and scientific

knowledge that allows him to perform his work with complete impartiality and

objectivity, his tasks do not involve the interpretation of the facts nor does he introduce

new ones to a debate room, on the contrary, it is limited to the technical presentation

of the evidence through a clear document. (Cárdenas and Cárdenas, 2022).. For this

reason, the persons in charge of this work must be accredited according to the COGEP.

The relevance attributed to sound criticism as a method for evaluating evidence

highlights the need to establish certain standards even for these criteria, which

apparently could allow the judge to make this evaluation in a fairly free manner.

However, it is essential to consider this system as a balance between strictly applying

the laws in the valuation of evidence and granting the judge total freedom in his criteria.

Once the concept of Sound Criticism is understood in the procedural field as a system

of evidence evaluation, rules inherent to this approach can be identified. When

compared with the definitions of legal experts, it is evident that the rules of sound

criticism emphasize the importance of logic, experience and reasonableness.

As for motivation, it refers to the obligation of judges to explain the reasons behind a

specific decision. Motivation is essential in judicial rulings, as it allows the parties to

understand the reasons for a decision and, if necessary, to challenge it. Motivation must

have sufficient legal grounds and an adequate factual basis, which implies that judges

must clearly and coherently explain why they made a particular decision.

Although sound criticism and motivation are different concepts in procedural law, both

are related insofar as they require judges to use logic and reason in their actions, to be

consistent and to maintain impartiality. In the case of sound criticism, judges must use

logic and reason to evaluate the veracity of the facts presented in a judicial proceeding

and be consistent and impartial in that evaluation. Similarly, in terms of motivation,

judges must use logic and reason to justify their decision and be consistent and impartial

in their explanation, such that:

The judge is not a teacher, he is an authority that has the power to validate or annul a

judicial decision, with all its consequences for the persons involved, depending on

whether or not the guarantee of motivation is satisfied. Consequently, the use of the

guidelines established in this judgment must be reasonable (Constitutional Court of

Ecuador, 2021, p.17).

Therefore, sound criticism and motivation in the field of procedural law are essential,

since it requires judges and magistrates to apply logic and reason consistently and

objectively in their analysis. Sound criticism stands as a valuation method aimed at

weighing the evidence presented in the context of a judicial process. In parallel, the

motivation implies the jurisdictional obligation to explain in a thorough and well-

founded manner the bases that support the making of a specific decision. These

principles seek to ensure consistency and impartiality in the jurisdictional exercise, and

promote the integrity and transparency of the judicial process.

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

Results

The relevance of the means of evidence lies in its capacity to verify the authenticity of

the relevant facts, thus contributing to the fundamental objectives of the administration

of justice. In this context, sound criticism stands as one of the essential pillars in the

assessment of evidence, according to which the judge, in his role as the highest

authority, must apply legal principles and constitutional rights. Despite the lack of

doctrinal development in the system of sound criticism, jurisprudence and doctrine have

had to regulate it, highlighting its importance in the prevention of subjectivity and

arbitrariness in the evaluation of evidence.

The COGEP (2015), as the legislation that regulates the procedural field in Ecuador,

integrates in its articles one of the most important parameters within the process, the

Evidence. When analyzing Article 164 of this normative body and its subsequent ones,

an important problem arises, which leaves to the free disposition of the judge the

valuation of the evidence. Although it has been established that this exercise is carried

out based on the rules of sound criticism, it has not been determined what these rules

are, much less has this precept been defined as such. Despite the fact that both the

COGEP and the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador have determined the existence

of this precept, it has not been possible to reach an exact conception.

It is taken into account that, through the different criteria established by the doctrine,

the importance of analyzing which are the rules that are integrated to the Sound

Criticism and that entails its application and essence is determined. When analyzing

parameters that avoid subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judge for a correct evaluation

of the evidence, aspects such as logic, maxims of experience, scientific methods,

psychology, morality, precepts of mental hygiene, among others, are mentioned. It is

important to take into account general parameters that allow the judge to evaluate the

evidence adequately and, therefore, to reach a correct motivation of the decision

through the sentence.

The legal criteria issued in an exhaustive manner in Ecuador have been nonexistent, so

it is necessary to refer to the doctrine and analyze the application of the Sound Criticism

not only as a system of evaluation of evidence, but as the mechanism by which the legal

truth is found, so that the Logic and Experience as those rules that should integrate the

procedural rules in Ecuador are necessary for the jurisdictional authority to have

parameters on which to perform this exercise and issue their decisions.

It should be emphasized that sound criticism is not a system of free evaluation of

evidence, but is based on the application of prudential rules of a legal nature that

regulate the activity of weighing the evidence by the judge. These rules of sound

criticism are called to specify the concept of sound criticism from a non-formalized

perspective, beyond the legal tariff, and are based on logic, the maxims of experience,

scientific methods, psychology, morality, precepts of mental hygiene, among others. It

is necessary to refer to the doctrine and analyze the application of the sound criticism

not only as a system of valuation of evidence, but as the mechanism by which the legal

truth is found. Logic and experience are those rules that should integrate the procedural

norm in Ecuador, since they are necessary for the jurisdictional authority to have

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

parameters on which it can carry out this exercise and issue its decisions. (Constitutional

Court of Ecuador, 2021)..

The Constitutional Court of Ecuador, in Ruling No. 305-17-sep-cc case No. 1597-16-ep.

(2017), determined that the judges of the Labor Chamber of the National Court of

Justice had correctly applied the rules of sound criticism when assessing the evidence

in the case in question. The Court highlighted that the assessment of the evidence was

carried out as a whole and according to the rules of sound criticism, and that the

decision made by the judges ad that it was motivated in a consistent, logical and

coherent manner. This concrete example illustrates the importance of the proper

application of the rules of sound criticism in the evaluation of evidence in a court case.

Sound criticism, as a system of evidence evaluation, must be applied rigorously and

consistently to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of evidence. In

addition, clear and precise criteria must be established for the application of sound

criticism in the legal field, in order to avoid subjectivity and arbitrariness in the

evaluation of evidence.

The lack of doctrinal development, as explained by Cusi (2022)in the system of sound

criticism in the Ecuadorian legal context has generated the need to resort to

jurisprudence and doctrine to understand and apply this guiding principle in the

evaluation of evidence.

Jurisprudence and doctrine have a key link in the regulation and interpretation of sound

criticism in the Ecuadorian legal sphere, as explained by Macías (2023). Through the

different criteria established by the doctrine, the importance of analyzing which are the

rules that are integrated to the sound criticism and that entail the application and

essence of this is determined. It is essential to establish clear and precise criteria for the

application of sound criticism in the legal field, in order to avoid subjectivity and

arbitrariness in the evaluation of evidence.

Sound criticism, as a guiding principle in the assessment of evidence, is based on logic

and experience, without excessive intellectual abstractions, but also without forgetting

the precepts that ensure accurate and effective reasoning. In the legal context, sound

criticism stands as one of the essential pillars in the evaluation of evidence, according

to which the judge, in his role as the highest authority, must apply legal principles and

constitutional rights. Despite the lack of doctrinal development in the system of sound

criticism, jurisprudence and doctrine have had to regulate it, through the revaluation of

its importance in the prevention of subjectivity and arbitrariness in the evaluation of

evidence (Escobar, 2018).

In this sense, Valenzuela (2020)in his study on the approach to the due motivation of

judgments, mentions that it is necessary for the doctrine and jurisprudence to continue

with the clarification and development of the criteria that make up the sound criticism,

in order to provide judges with clear and precise parameters for the evaluation of

evidence in the Ecuadorian legal environment. Sound criticism, as a guiding principle in

the evaluation of evidence, must be understood as a system that seeks to guarantee

objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of evidence presented in a judicial process.

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

Conclusions

In the approach to the conflict resolution procedure, the evaluation of evidence

emerges as an essential component in the judicial process. Evidence, understood as a

legal instrument, is the subject of analysis over time, highlighting its usefulness,

relevance and conduciveness in Ecuadorian law, specifically in the COGEP.

In the Ecuadorian regulatory framework, the COGEP, integrates in its articles within the

process the parameter of evidence. When analyzing article 164 of this body of law and

its subsequent articles, a problem arises that leaves the evaluation of evidence to the

free disposition of the judge. Although it has been established that this exercise is

carried out based on the rules of sound criticism, it has not been determined what these

rules are, much less has this precept been defined as such. Therefore, clear parameters

must be established to allow the judge to evaluate the evidence in an adequate manner

and, therefore, to arrive at a correct motivation of the decision through the sentence.

Sound criticism, as a system of evaluation of evidence, must be understood as the

mechanism by which legal truth is sought to be achieved, by avoiding subjectivity and

arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence presented in a judicial process. Sound

criticism seeks to ensure that the judge evaluates in a fair and equitable manner the

credibility and evidentiary weight of the elements presented in the process, without

incurring in both the rigidity of legal evidence and the arbitrariness of free conviction.

In this sense, the motivation of judicial decisions must clearly and precisely reflect how

this guiding principle has been applied in the process of evidentiary assessment, which

results in the parties involved understanding the basis on which the judgment has been

rendered.

The lack of an adequate motivation that reflects the use of sound criticism in the

assessment of evidence may lead to questions about the validity and reasoning of the

decision, which affects the legitimacy of the judicial process. Thus, in Ruling No. 305-

17-sep-cc case No. 1597-16-ep. (2017)it is emphasized that judges, when issuing their

rulings, not only apply the sound criticism in the assessment of evidence, but also,

motivate the reasons that support their conclusion, which gives rise to the consistency

and soundness of their decisions. In this way, the transparency, legitimacy and validity

of judicial decisions are guaranteed, which strengthens the justice system and the

protection of the rights of the parties involved.

Therefore, the lack of legal criteria issued in an exhaustive manner in Ecuador has

generated the need to resort to doctrine and jurisprudence to understand and apply

sound criticism in the evaluation of evidence. It is important to establish clear and

precise criteria for the application of sound criticism in the legal field, in order to avoid

subjectivity and arbitrariness in the evaluation of evidence. In view of this situation, it is

imperative that a legislative review and update be carried out to address in a precise

and detailed manner the rules governing sound criticism in the Ecuadorian legal system.

The creation of a clear regulatory framework would provide judges and lawyers with

specific tools to carry out an informed, objective and impartial evaluation of evidence.

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

In conclusion, the present legal analysis on the valuation of evidence based on the rules

of sound criticism reveals the importance, in the Ecuadorian legal context, of the due

application and consideration of such aspects at the time of sentencing. Throughout

the study, it has become evident the need to clarify and develop the criteria that make

up the sound criticism, which have been insufficiently defined in the regulations, which

generates a space for jurisprudence and doctrine in its regulation.

..........................................................................................................

References

Alvarenga Vásquez, J. S. (2017). Ethical

application of sound criticism in the

evaluation of evidence in the Salvadoran

civil and commercial process.

Angulo, J. P. D. (2016). The presuppositions of

sound criticism: are our judges prepared

for sound criticism. Revista de derecho,

(20), 47-69.

Artavia, S., & Picado, C. (2018). Evidence in

general. Costa Rican Institute of

Scientific Procedural Law.

Cárdenas, K., & Cárdenas, C. (2022). La Prueba

y su Valoración dentro del Código

Orgánico General de Procesos, Ecuador.

Revista científica Sociedad & Tecnología,

5(s1), 17-29.

Cárdenas, P. (2021). The evaluation of evidence

in criminal proceedings: a constitutional

perspective. Revista Universidad y

Sociedad, 13(2), 160-169.

http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S22

18-

36202021000200160&script=sci_arttext

&tlng=en

General Organic Code of Proceedings. (2015).

National Assembly.

https://www.lexis.com.ec/biblioteca/cog

Coloma, R., & Aguero, C. (2014). Logic, science

and expertise in the valuation of

evidence. Revista chilena de derecho,

41(2), 673-703.

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-

34372014000200011.

Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008).

Quito: RO 449.

Constitutional Court of Ecuador (September 13,

2017). SENTENCE N.° 305-17-SEP-CC.

Constitutional Court of Ecuador (October 20,

2021). Sentence 1158-17-EP/21:

Guarantee of the motivation.

http://esacc.corteconstitucional.gob.ec/

storage/api/v1/10_DWL_FL/e2NhcnBld

GE6J3RyYW1pdGUnLCB1dWlkOidkYjI2

NzM0NS05MjE2LTQ1ZDMtOGE5Ny03

YTg2ZTAyMmYwYmYucGRmJ30=?fbcli

d=IwAR1ArJVS3zV7Q-

WA4PsQ_BzRVA6wx9DEbmPHuxiWGijv

VGH6nodJ3dit9hk

Couture, E. (1958). Derecho procesal civil.

Fundamentos del Derecho Procesal

Civil.

Escobar Pérez, M. J. (2010). La valoración de la

prueba, en la motivación de una

sentencia en la legislación ecuatoriana

(Master's thesis, Universidad Andina

Simón Bolívar, Sede Ecuador).

Escobar, J. (2018). Sound criticism and the

oblivion of the rules of sound criticism.

Revista de Derecho, 31(1), 303-325.

https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0

718-

09502018000100303&script=sci_abstra

ct.

García Costa, F. M. (2011). General issues on the

principle of objectivity. DA Revista

Documentación Administrativa, (289).

Gijón, J. M. (1961). Judicial evidence in the

territorial law of Navarre and Aragon

during the late Middle Ages. Anuario de

Historia del Derecho español, 17-54.

Legal analysis of the appraisal of evidence based on the rules of sound judgement

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

González Castillo, J. (2006). The basis of

judgments and sound criticism. Revista

chilena de derecho, 33(1), 93-107.

Hernandez, J. (2020). The economic impact of

COVID-19 (new coronavirus). Deloitte, 2-

Jara Vásquez, L.A (2021). La sana crítica como

concepto jurídico indeterminado para la

admisión de la prueba nueva en el

Código Orgánico General de Procesos.

Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.

Lasso, J. (2009). Logic and Sound Criticism.

Revista Chilena de Derecho, 31(1), 143-

164.

doi:https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1770/1

77014521007.pdf

Macías, S. (2023). Evidentiary reasoning, sound

criticism and judicial motivation in

quaestio facti. MQRInvestigar, 7(2), 578-

613.

http://www.investigarmqr.com/ojs/index

.php/mqr/article/view/362.

Melo, R. (2012). EL ESTADO DE EXCEPCIÓN

EN EL ECUADOR Y SU RELACIÓN CON

EL ESTADO DE DERECHO. (MASTER'S

THESIS IN LAW). UNIVERSIDAD

ANDINA SIMÓN BOLÍVAR, ECUADOR.

Pfeffer, E. (2018). States of Constitutional

Exception and Constitutional Reform .

Ius Et Praxis, 223-250.

Pillajo, M. A. L. (2017). Legal reasoning: logic,

interpretation and argumentation.

Revista Facultad de Jurisprudencia, (1),

59-80.

Rivera Morales, R. (2011). La prueba: un análisis

racional y práctico. Marcial Pons.

Rivera, F., & Rojas, L. (2020). Interdisciplinary

study on the Systems of Valuation and

Evidentiary Standards in Colombian

procedural law.

Glenda Betzabe Ávila Pérez , Karina Dayana Cárdenas Paredes

Espirales. Revista multidisciplinaria de investigación científica, Vol. 8, No. 49

April - June 2024 e-ISSN 2550-6862. pp 1-17

https://doi.org/10.16925/2357-

5891.2019.02.01

Rodríguez Serpa, F., & Tuirán Gutierrez, J. P.

(2011). The rational assessment of

evidence. JURÍDICAS CUC.

Ruiz Bravo, A., & Jiménez Valera, M. (2020).

SARS-CoV-2 and pandemic acute

respiratory syndrome (COVID-19). Ars

Pharmaceutica, 7-8.

Valenzuela, G. (2020). Current approach to the

motivation of sentences. Its analysis as a

component of due process. Revista de

Derecho (Universidad Católica Dámaso A.

Larrañaga, School of Law), 21, 72-90.