Search

Although widely used in civil proceedings, presumptions receive little attention from either judicial practice or doctrine. Classified more or less naturally as evidence, presumptions are required to follow the general legal regime as regards the proposal, acceptance and taking of evidence in civil proceedings, even if their particular features would require differentiated legal treatment. Moreover, the specific features of presumptions in the architecture of civil proceedings sometimes conflict with the fundamental adversarial principle, since the parties risk being unaware of the presumptions applied by the court only belatedly, by reading the recitals of the judgment in the case. This study mentions some of these specific differences that make it necessary to reconsider presumptions among the tools used to find out the truth in question, and practical cases of application of judicial presumptions are also analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The continuation of the criminal trial is a form of exercising the right of defence through which, in the cases expressly and limitingly provided by law, the suspect or defendant causes an increase in procedural activity after extinguishing the criminal action in order to unequivocally establish his innocence. This procedure, which is the subject of this study, was established to guarantee the presumption of innocence of the suspect or defendant in the event that the criminal action is extinguished as a result of certain impediments provided by Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These impediments are: the existence of a cause of imputability, the intervention of the pre-conviction amnesty, the intervention of the prescription of cr iminal liability, the withdrawal of the preliminary complaint and the existence of a cause of impunity. These situations are limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]