Las presunciones hominis y las inferencias probatorias
The author challenges the terminology «legal presumptions» and «judicial presumptions», and rather refers to presumptions established by rules of presumption and to hominis presumptions. He argues that the best way to differentiate between them is by showing the contrast between «it shall be presume...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | Perú |
| Institución: | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Repositorio: | PUCP-Institucional |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.14657/116725 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechopucp/article/view/19317/19448 https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201702.005 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Presunciones Presunciones hominis Inferencias probatorias Inferencias fácticas Carga de la prueba https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.00 |
| Sumario: | The author challenges the terminology «legal presumptions» and «judicial presumptions», and rather refers to presumptions established by rules of presumption and to hominis presumptions. He argues that the best way to differentiate between them is by showing the contrast between «it shall be presumed» (syntagm proper to practical reasoning) and «it is presumable» (syntagm proper to theoretical reasoning). The text clarifies the relationship between the so-called hominis presumptions and the factual inferences or evidential inferences, in general. He answers the question of what the «it is presumed» syntagm (proper to the hominis presumptions) brings with respect to the «it is probable» syntagm (proper of all evidentiary inferences). |
|---|