Search

This article explains the disparity of criteria generated within the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Justice concerning to the use of the theories of the dynamic burden of proof in the Colombian criminal accusatory tendency process, enactment by Act 906 of 2004. This study was conducted through a normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis with a basic legal qualitative approach. Results determined the absence of unifying criteria in the High Courts allowing the application of the distribution of the burden of proof arbitrarily, contrary to the prohibition in clause 3 article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explains the disparity of criteria generated within the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Justice concerning to the use of the theories of the dynamic burden of proof in the Colombian criminal accusatory tendency process, enactment by Act 906 of 2004. This study was conducted through a normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis with a basic legal qualitative approach. Results determined the absence of unifying criteria in the High Courts allowing the application of the distribution of the burden of proof arbitrarily, contrary to the prohibition in clause 3 article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]