The Evidentiary Defect in Tutela Actions Against Judicial Rulings:Scope and Admissibility Criteria in Colombia

Abstract

This research article examines the evidentiary defect as a specific ground for admissibility in tutela actions against judicial rulings within the Colombian legal system. It analyzes its constitutional and jurisprudential foundations, highlighting how the failure of judges to adhere to evidentiary standards can lead to the violation of fundamental rights and justify the intervention of the constitutional judge. To this end, the concept of evidentiary defect is explored through the lens of legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, distinguishing it from other grounds for admissibility, such as factual defect and material defect. The article delves into the Court’s criteria for its configuration, including the omission of relevant evidence, the improper assessment of the evidentiary record, and the requirement of inadmissible or non-existent evidence. Additionally, landmark cases in which the Court has granted constitutional protection on this ground are analyzed, identifying interpretative patterns and application criteria. Finally, the article reflects on the challenges and limitations of tutela actions against judicial decisions, considering the principle of judicial autonomy and the exceptional nature of constitutional review of rulings. This study aims to deepen the understanding of the evidentiary defect as a ground for tutela admissibility, providing analytical tools for its proper application while ensuring a balance between judicial independence and the effective protection of fundamental rights.