The standard of proof is the threshold that allows knowing if a story can be considered to be proved within a process. The election of the standard of proof always presumes a normative decision that demands to know the valuable things that will be lost because of a wrong sentence. Here I attempt two rational forms of understanding the evidentiary standard: (i) an external approach based on rules of evidential weight related to the pattern used by the Chilean justice during the XX century and (ii) an internal approach fixed on the judge's impartiality and its conviction, in addition of a possible synthesis of both through the strategy of inference to the best explanation. For this analysis I use the example of the case of civil liability and I follow the Anglo-American debate very closely with a desire to contribute to a challenge put off ahead for our administration of justice.
|Translated title of the contribution||Towards a civil standard of proof|
|Number of pages||26|
|Journal||Revista Chilena de Derecho|
|State||Published - 1 Dec 2013|