The standard of proof in Ecuadorian criminal procedural law: a legal analysis of its application in the judicial system.

Abstract

The standard of proof constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of criminal procedural law, as it determines the degree of evidentiary sufficiency required to justify judicial decisions at each stage of the proceedings. In the Ecuadorian context, its application has been predominantly subject to exegetical interpretations, creating the need for a comprehensive analysis that facilitates an understanding of its role within the evidentiary system and its impact on safeguarding due process and the presumption of innocence. The objective of this article is to critically analyze the standard of proof in Ecuadorian criminal procedural law through a systemic interpretation of its judicial application. Specifically, it compares the elements of the standard of proof established in legal doctrine with those provided by Ecuadorian criminal procedural legislation and establishes a legal criterion regarding the effectiveness of the scientific tariff methodology applied in the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code. The research adopts a qualitative approach based on dogmatic-legal, exegetical, and systematic analyses of legal doctrine, current legislation, and the standards of proof applicable to Ecuadorian criminal proceedings. The findings demonstrate that the determination of procedural truth does not depend on isolated rules but rather on the overall architecture of the evidentiary system and its capacity to provide rational justification for judicial decision-making. Furthermore, the study identifies that the joint assessment of testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence strengthens the justificatory value of the body of evidence, enabling the confirmation or refutation of competing hypotheses through logical reasoning that transcends the judge's mere intuitive assessment. In addition, the research demonstrates the need to establish objective thresholds of evidentiary sufficiency based on qualitative criteria of logical (Baconian) probability to determine when a hypothesis may be considered legally proven. Finally, it confirms the existence of a hierarchical relationship among the standards of proof within the Ecuadorian criminal justice system, whereby the required level of evidentiary confirmation progressively increases from initial suspicion to the level of conviction required for a criminal judgment.It is concluded that the application of the standard of proof should be understood from a systemic and comprehensive perspective, in which the rational assessment of evidence and the definition of objective criteria of evidentiary sufficiency contribute to strengthening the reasoning underlying judicial decisions while ensuring due process, the presumption of innocence, and legal certainty.