The burden of proof in the prior offense against the crime of enrichment of individuals
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Authors keep the copyright and accept the publication of the contents in the journal Dos mil tres mil under the license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. When authors submit their manuscript, it is assumed that they know and accept the terms of open access and the license used, that they allow publication in this journal and the disclosure of the work.
Authors are allowed to re-use published works, ie post-print may be archived for non-publication purposes Commercial, including their deposit in institutional repositories, thematic or personal web pages. Reproduction in other print or electronic media must include an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and its initial publication in the Journal.
Downloads
Main Article Content
Abstract
The subject of the theory of the dynamic burden of proof in criminal proceedings has been the object of further study by specialized doctrine and jurisprudence of both the Supreme Court of Justice, the Criminal Chamber, and the Constitutional Court. Subject that is not peaceful and that even its discussion is still in force, since some doctrinants share the application of the inversion of the evidentiary burden in the criminal processes (González, 2011) and others not (Escobar and Albarello, 2013); The former maintain that the application of the probative dynamic burden in criminal proceedings is aimed at preventing impunity or at facilitating the prosecution of certain crimes; while the latter, their arguments are aligned with the constitutional principles, to allow us to understand that any process of a criminal nature, being bound to unbreakable principles such as: The presumption of innocence and in dubio pro reo, does not have to attribute to the defendant the burden of proof to prove his or her innocence.
Thus, by retaking several pedagogical reflections of the different classes of the subject Criminal Procedural Law at Universidad de Ibagué, it is intended to write a trial essay on the burden of proof in the criminal process, reflecting two critical reflections, namely : First, the rule contained in paragraph 3 of Article 7 of Law 906 of 2004 when it states that: "In no case may this evidentiary burden be reversed"; Second, to the restrictive application of the dynamic burden of proof admitted by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice for the prosecution of certain crimes, one of them the illicit enrichment of individuals (article 327 of the Criminal Code).