Imparcialidad de origen, cognitiva y disposicional del perito en la valoración de la prueba pericial.

Abstract

Article 233 of the Organic Code of General Processes—part of the Ecuadorian regulatory framework—recognizes impartiality and objectivity as requirements for expert conduct, yet it does not explicitly establish differentiated criteria for a comprehensive assessment of these qualities. This study aims to analyze the expert's impartiality regarding origin, cognition, and disposition, evaluating its impact on the reliability of the expert report, given that expert evidence is a fundamental element in judicial decision-making. The research employed a qualitative approach with a case study design and a descriptive-correlational scope. In this context, it is acknowledged that impartiality must account for factors related to origin, cognition, and the surrounding context—going beyond merely checking for conflicting interests, circumstances, or personal ties—while also considering the influence of reasoning, judgment, transparency, and the acknowledgment of analytical limitations. Consequently, the study identifies a regulatory gap regarding the parameters needed to guide the judicial expert's impartiality and reliability during the comprehensive assessment of the report; this highlights the need to reform Article 233 to incorporate criteria that allow for the evaluation of impartiality dimensions without automatically becoming grounds for the exclusion of the expert evidence.