This work addresses the problem of why witness testimony is not valued as evidence on civil
procedures. This situation is different from what occurs in court procedures on criminal and
labour law matters, or even in arbitration procedures. Research aims to discover the reasons for
this difference, by comparing the rules of evidence of the Peruvian civil procedure with those of
the International Bar Association - IBA.
The comparison proved to be useful as it finds the causes on the breach of the principle of truth
and on the lack of technical knowledge for the use of testimony as a valuable means of
evidence.
The author highlights the advantages of certain features contained in the rules of evidence of the
IBA, which he proposes to incorporate into the Peruvian civil procedure.
Accordingly, the author suggests that the Peruvian civil procedure could incorporate features
such as witness written statement and cross-examination, as well as other types of
interrogatories which all together could help overcoming the problems found in Peru which
limit the use of witness testimonials. / Tesis
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/9260 |
| Date | 31 August 2017 |
| Creators | Avendaño Valdez, Juan Luis |
| Contributors | Bullard González, Alfredo José |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/pe/ |
Page generated in 0.0114 seconds