Los informes periciales en materia no penal y el principio de imparcialidad.

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between expert reports in non-criminal matters and the principle of impartiality, with the aim of determining their impact on the evaluation of evidence and the legitimacy of judicial decisions. The research is based on the premise that expert evidence constitutes a highly significant means of proof, as it provides technical, scientific, artistic, or practical knowledge that exceeds the legal expertise of judges and is essential for resolving complex disputes. However, the increasing relevance of expert reports also creates the risk that technical opinions may improperly replace judicial reasoning when they are not subjected to a critical assessment in accordance with the principles of sound judicial evaluation of evidence. The study presents a doctrinal, legal, and jurisprudential analysis of expert evidence and the principle of impartiality within the framework of Ecuador’s General Organic Code of Procedures (Código Orgánico General de Procesos – COGEP) and the national legal system. It examines the role of the expert witness as an auxiliary to the administration of justice, the requirements of objectivity and independence that must govern expert performance, and the judge’s duty to evaluate expert reports in a comprehensive, rational, and well-reasoned manner without granting them binding or decisive authority. The findings conclude that impartiality is an essential guarantee of due process, extending not only to the conduct of the expert witness but also to the judicial assessment of expert opinions. The uncritical acceptance of expert reports may undermine the rights to defense, procedural equality, legal certainty, and the proper reasoning of judicial decisions. Consequently, the study highlights the need to strengthen evidence assessment based on impartiality, reasonableness, and the principles of sound judicial evaluation, ensuring that expert reports retain their auxiliary nature and contribute to objective, well-founded judicial decisions that uphold constitutional guarantees.