Inconsistencias en la pertinencia de la prueba en el Código Orgánico General de Procesos.

Abstract

This thesis critically analyzes the ambiguity in the application of the criterion of evidentiary relevance during the trial stage, according to Ecuador's General Organic Code of Procedures (COGEP). Relevance, understood as the relationship between the evidentiary means and the relevant facts of the case, is an essential requirement for the admission of evidence, and its analysis corresponds exclusively to the preliminary phase or the second phase of the single hearing, as established in Article 160 of the COGEP. However, in legal practice, it can happen that judges misinterpret Article 196, paragraph 1 of the COGEP, since once the aforementioned procedural stages have concluded, they may discretionally exclude evidence that was not excluded during those stages, thus violating the litigants' right to due process and legal certainty. The thesis also analyzes the procedural principles of evidence and their relationship to the relevance of evidence. Finally, a legislative reform to the COGEP is proposed, taking into account the aspects analyzed in this work, and the Constitutional Court or the National Court of Justice is urged to issue precedents, within their respective jurisdictions, that clearly define the scope of Articles 160 and 196 of the COGEP.