Inconsistencias en la prueba no anunciada ante los peritos en el COGEP.

Abstract

The issue of the presentation of unannounced evidence in the judicial process is addressed, analyzing how it affects the dynamics of the process and the importance of its regulation within the Ecuadorian legal framework. The fundamental role played by evidence by experts in the resolution of conflicts and in the search for material truth in the judicial process is highlighted. The procedural principles of immediacy and contradiction, essential to guarantee a fair and equitable trial, are also explored, as well as how the presentation of unannounced evidence can violate these principles. On the other hand, an analysis of article 223 of the COGEP is carried out, focusing on the provisions that regulate the admission of unannounced evidence and the way in which judges must handle it during the judicial process. The article studies how different judges have interpreted and applied this article, revealing a variety of criteria and approaches that generate inconsistency in its application. It is argued that the lack of clear regulations regarding unannounced evidence creates legal uncertainty, affecting confidence in the justice system. In addition, the legal gaps that exist in the current regulations are identified and analyzed, leading to a lack of uniformity in the admission of this type of evidence. It highlights how discrepancies in the interpretation and application of the law by judges lead to contradictory decisions, affecting the coherence of the judicial system. Thus, a legal reform is proposed that establishes that the resolution on the legality and relevance of unannounced evidence must be resolved compulsorily in an Oral Hearing, with the issuance of a written Interlocutory Order, independent of the final sentence. This order must be subject to appeal to guarantee adequate control over the admission of this evidence. Finally, the reform proposal proposes that the decision on unannounced evidence be resolved in a hearing, allowing for a contradictory debate in real time. In addition, the issuance of a separate Interlocutory Order, with the possibility of appeal, would ensure a fairer and more transparent process, preventing these pieces of evidence from becoming elements of surprise or being used improperly.