INCIDENCIA DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LA LÓGICA EN LA VALORACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA EN EL DERECHO PENAL COLOMBIANO DESDE LA LEY 906 DEL 2004.

Abstract

In a judicial system where the assessment of evidence is one of the most critical elements for decision-making, the lack of methodological rigor, interpretive biases, and subjectivity can undermine the fairness and legitimacy of judicial rulings. This study seeks to develop an approach that enables judges to incorporate logical tools into their exercise of evidentiary assessment.

In the context of Colombian criminal law, the evaluation of evidence faces numerous challenges. Among these are the management of contradictory information, the subjective interpretation of evidentiary means, and the absence of a structured framework to guide judicial reasoning. These problems not only affect the quality of judicial decisions, but also generate uncertainty and mistrust in the justice system on the part of the public. In this scenario, logic emerges as a valuable instrument to ensure a rigorous and structured appraisal of evidence.

This research identifies and analyzes the main principles of logic that can be applied to legal reasoning and, in particular, to the assessment of evidence, among which the principle of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of the excluded middle, and the principle of sufficient reason stand out. Each of these principles plays a specific role in improving evidentiary assessment and is directly linked to the demands of the criminal justice system.

The study puts forward a proposal that combines the foundations of formal and material logic with the principles of substantive and procedural criminal law in relation to the appraisal of evidence. By integrating these elements, it seeks to generate a tool on which judges can rely when weighing the evidence, thereby promoting more reasoned and objective decisions.