Search

Confidentiality is of the utmost importance for the well-functioning of ADR methods, so it is necessary that all the information that falls within its protection remains effectively undisclosed. However, at the same time, we must bear in mind that ADR do not exclude the jurisdiction, but they only try to avoid it. As a result of that, it is noticed a potential conflict of interests that, in the framework of a civil procedure or an arbitration, might be produced between confidentiality and the right to evidence. In that context, the present paper analyses and pretends to answer some of the questions that said conflict of interests poses. In this way, first of all, it is attempted to delimit the object and the scope of the principle of confidentiality Further on, some of the problematic questions that the submitting of evidence in breach of due confidentiality are examined, with especial regard in its inadmissibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We seek to define in its meaning and legal contours the constitutional guarantee of the right of the accused to present evidence and contradict those that are brought against him. In this study we start from the idea of evidence as a right that has its historical antecedent in the common witness, as a guarantee of the defendant against the power of sovereignty. It also approaches its foundation in conventional humanitarian law to conclude that it is a fundamental right. It is also characterized as a subjective right to which the State is subject; and among the powers and prerogatives of litigants one finds securing evidence, free legal assistance, broad and flexible possibilities of proposition and evidentiary practice and a rational assessment of the evidence. The right to evidence is proclaimed as an autonomous subjective right with respect to others as due process, and is conceived as an essential value in the realization of justice without depending on an act of will or any special interest of the litigant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]