The principle of contradiction of evidence in pre-procedural preventive orders in Ecuador

Abstract

The article examines how the principle of contradiction of evidence operates within the context of pre-procedural preventive orders in Ecuador, highlighting the challenges involved in balancing the urgency and immediacy of these measures with the fundamental rights of those who may later become defendants. This principle requires that all parties be afforded the opportunity to contest the evidence and arguments brought against them. However, the current regulatory framework of this measures imposes significant limitations on the effective exercise of this right, both with regard to arguments and evidentiary elements. The analysis explores the legal nature and admissibility of these orders, demonstrating how certain restrictions affect the right to a proper defense. The study also assesses the procedural risks arising from the absence of prior contradiction, as well as the practical effectiveness of the mechanisms provided under the applicable procedural rules to mitigate such limitations. Finally, it underscores the need to develop legal tools that enable the effective post-adoption exercise of contradiction. The research adopts a qualitative approach, applying a dogmatic, bibliographic, and exegetical methodology, focused on the systematic legal analysis of interrelated procedural institutions.