Description

In the cycle of preliminary hearings enshrined in Law 906 of 2004, the legislator establishes that, after carrying out the first two (legalization of capture and formulation of imputation), in the third, to decide on the imposition of the measure prior assurance, the judge must satisfy a degree of knowledge of the facts called Inferencia Razonable. However, up to now, the law has not determined precisely how this threshold of probative sufficiency should be reached, which has led to numerous judicial errors, directly resulting in legal and constitutional guarantees (in itinere). For this reason, the purpose of this research is to enable the construction of an evidentiary and argumentative scheme that serves as an epistemological parameter to reach the required threshold. To achieve this, the works of Jordi Ferrer Beltrán and Stephen Toulmin will be used as support. The analysis will result in rationally limiting the application of said measure, thus guaranteeing the full satisfaction of the rights and freedoms of citizens. This justification supports the urgent need to carry out a legislative reform in the current criminal procedure statute, with the intention of establishing a true functional and coherent evidentiary standard. In this way, the judge would have objective grounds to make decisions about the imposition of the measure restricting liberty. This entire process will be carried out using a qualitative and descriptive research methodology, supported mainly by an exhaustive analysis of doctrinal sources.