Debate entre el garantismo y el activismo procesal : prueba para mejor resolver en el COGEP.

Abstract

In this academic work, the constitutive principles of the process and their empirical application to the debate of legal guarantee and procedural activism will be analyzed. Thus, we will examine the process as a peaceful method of debate aimed at resolving conflicts in the legal litigious field, understanding that judicial systems have been structured with the purpose of avoiding private revenge among the parties involved in a conflict and thus providing basic jurisdictional guarantees such as effective judicial protection through due process with the goal of resolving conflicts peacefully and protecting the rights of the parties. It is worth mentioning that the process is also analyzed as the paramount guarantee for the realization of rights. Similarly, various transcendent aspects of procedural guaranteed theories and procedural activism are analyzed, linking their postulates with the basic principles of the process, and understanding how each theory interprets and adapts them to its models. Finally, we will analyze the substantive directing powers that judges have in each of the theories proposed and question which of them is the most suitable according to respect for the constitutive principles of the process, focusing on the specific case of the application of the figure of "prueba por mejor resolver" (evidence for better resolution) that the General Organic Code of Procedures recognizes in its structure as part of one of the substantive directing powers of the process by the judges.