Sobre el estándar de prueba en el procedimiento sancionatorio ambiental chileno
This paper explores some ideas on the determination of the standard of proof applicable to the corroboration of factual hypotheses and the decisions to be taken by the State Administration in environmental sanctioning proceedings regulated by Law No. 20.417, which creates the Superintendence of the...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | tesis de maestría |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2018 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10256/19031 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10256/19031 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Sancions administratives -- Xile Sanctions, Administrative -- Chile Procediment administratiu -- Xile Administrative procedure -- Chile Offenses against the environment -- Chile Delictes ecològics -- Xile Dret ambiental -- Xile Environmental law -- Chile Prova (Dret) Evidence (Law) |
| Resumo: | This paper explores some ideas on the determination of the standard of proof applicable to the corroboration of factual hypotheses and the decisions to be taken by the State Administration in environmental sanctioning proceedings regulated by Law No. 20.417, which creates the Superintendence of the Environment in Chile. As a starting point, this work analyzes the conception that predominates in the continental system on the administrative sanctioning law and evidential law and reasoning. The specific objectives are, analyze: (i) the political-moral, legal and factual factors or elements that must be considered in determining the standard of proof; (ii) the eventual concurrence of more than one standard of proof, or the application of a "moving" standard of proof; and (iii) who should determine the applicable standard of proof and how. It is concluded that in the administrative-sanctioning practice and literature there is a serious problem of misunderstanding that transcends in an inadequate and insufficient solution to the problem of the distribution of the risks of error associated with the sanctioning decision, predominantly because the standard of proof is formulated in analogical terms with the criminal procedure, ignoring the particularities of the administrative and environmental sanctioning proceedings |
|---|