Search

The objective of the article is to reflect upon the dynamic burden of proof and the probationary initiative of the judge in the framework of the popular action as a figure through which, eventually, the protection of the collective rights might be achieved. The methodology employed was based on the documentary and jurisprudential review. One of the achievements of the article was the prevalence of collective rights over the probationary rituality. Thus, it determines that even though the claimant must provide the burden of proof, it is also true that the judge must consider the goals of the constitutional public actions towards the real protection of the rights, which will eventually imply the deployment of its officious faculties in the matter. The main conclusion refers to the fact that the claiming party has the burden of proof in the popular claims towards demonstrating the affirmed facts, but emphasizes the fact that, in the concrete case, the burden of proof might be distributed for different reasons. Likewise, the judge finds her or himself to advance its officious duty for exceptionally decreeing and performing proofs for procuring effective judicial protection without filling proof deficiencies due to a lack of diligence by the parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently one of the structural mandates for the effective protection of rights is the fundamental right to the evidence, not only because of the new phenomenon of constitutionalization process but by the experience of individual cases, which have driven it serious reforms. Before the General Code of Procedure its reality reveals a citizen who comes to the administration of justice and sees defined the validity and effectiveness of its claim or exception through three systems: i) the ability or directed intention of his or her counterpart in providing or no evidence of the fact, which is another way to understand the classical notion of who has to show the evidence; ii) in the search for truth by the judge, through his functions; and iii) the surprise of looking for evidence, which the person is assigned to take the evidence get know in the judgment that he had to do it. Nowadays with the GCP and the Status of National and International Arbitration, the functions of the judge will increase, to be allowed to assign the burden of proving on the part of the procedural relationship which is in a better position to do so and enact measures evidentiary precautionary, which means to define and to study what we call the "input" or "bags" to which the judge can go intending to make an effective protection of the right to evidence the proposition stage and requirement of the test, which under this new legislation actually affects the substantive law of this fundamental right, on one hand, and the structure of this new institution towards some aspects that defined the GCP, which can be approached from its critical aspects in what is considered eminently procedural. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]