| Summary: | The article deals with the scientific proof, which is a variant of expert evidence. This includes, for example, expert evidence, expert testimony or experts. We maintain in this text that the high reliability of the scientific evidence is not confused with its infallibility. It is up to the judge or arbitrator to act as the guardian of the scientific evidence, in order to avoid that in the process, they enter evidence without suitability, valuing in an appropriate way the validity of the method used, as well as the margin of error of this one. To this end, the Daubert Case, judged by the US Supreme Court in 1993, can be used as a parameter to be assimilated by the jurisprudence and the national legislations. Thus, new rules on expert evidence are necessary and, as long as the legislation does not suffer the necessary changes, the judges must adapt the procedures to the new evidence requirements.
|
|---|