LA PERSISTENCIA DE LA PRUEBA LEGAL EN LA JUDICATURA DE FAMILIA

the reform to judicial procedure has posed fundamental changes to our proof system; we have gone from a system of legal proof to a system where the principles of liberty of proof and sound criticism prevail. these suppose that the exercise of proof valoration from our courts acquires different characteristics and requirements. basically a specific and concrete analysis is demanded around the probatory proof that a certain judge gave to a determined means of proof and what reasons are behind it. this defers from what is expected from judges the civil procedure code system, where the analysis id more mathematical and abstract. this document's focus is to show how, despite the fact that family courts consagrate the principle of liberty of proof and sound criticism, there is jurisprudence that demonstrates that judges still appreciate proofs according to the logic of the legal proof system, which is not compatible with said principles. i base my opinion in two issues: the use of general and abstract criteria to assess the witness' credibility and the tendency to require proof that is one hundred percent doubtless to determine the procedence of a divorce when the cause is the breach of basic marital duties.