El rol activo del juez y la prueba para mejor resolver en los procesos regulados por el COGEP: análisis de la tensión entre el principio de imparcialidad y la búsqueda de la verdad material, y propuesta de lineamientos normativos para su aplicación

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the scope and limits of the judicial power to order evidence for the better resolution of a case as provided for in Article 168 of the Organic General Code of Procedures (COGEP) in relation to judicial impartiality and the procedural guarantees of the parties. The issue arises because, while this power allows the judge to intervene exceptionally to clarify disputed facts when the available evidence is insufficient, its use can create risks if it ends up supplanting the evidentiary activity that is the responsibility of the litigants. An analysis of case law identifies criteria regarding the exceptional nature of such evidence, its link to disputed facts, the requirement for reasoned justification, respect for the right to challenge evidence, and the prohibition against compensating for the parties' negligence or evidentiary inaction. Consequently, the study proposes the establishment of regulatory guidelines to define the circumstances and conditions for exercising this power, seeking to balance the judge's evidentiary initiative with the preservation of judicial impartiality and procedural guarantees.