The standard of proof of knowledge beyond all reasonableness doubt in the administrative sanctioning procedure of Indecopi-Peru: A view from the presumption of innocence (presumption of lawfulness)

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.affiliationBustamante Rúa M.M., Universidad de Medellín, Medellín, Colombia
dc.contributor.affiliationMarín Tapiero J.I., Universidad de Medellín, Medellín, Colombia
dc.contributor.authorBustamante Rúa M.M.
dc.contributor.authorMarín Tapiero J.I.
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-08T14:23:22Z
dc.date.available2025-09-08T14:23:22Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.descriptionContext: From the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the criteria that make up due process have extensive application to all procedures, including the administrative sanctioning procedure followed by the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property of Peru (hereinafter, Indecopi). Regarding the relationship between due process and national procedures of any nature (judicial or administrative), it is the duty of the States Parties to carry out a conventionality analysis, in the sense that any norm or action of the State must be analyzed not only in terms of the national constitutional norm, but also in terms of the international obligations assumed by the State in terms of Human Rights in general, and in terms of the American Convention in particular. Therefore, with a view to guaranteeing conventional and constitutional rights, the standard of proof applicable in administrative sanctioning proceedings for conducts that violate free competition must be specified, which can in no way be arbitrary or purely subjective. Objective: The article analyzes the conventional and constitutional guarantees of presumption of innocence (presumption of lawfulness) and due process in the context of the administrative sanctioning procedure. The analysis of the presumption of innocence (presumption of lawfulness) is carried out from the perspective of the evidentiary rule (in relation to the burden of proof) and the rule of judgment (in relation to the standard of proof for the respective declaration of responsibility) with the purpose of demonstrating the high risk of violation of due process that exists in Indecopi’s administrative sanctioning procedure in the absence of a clear and unique applicable standard of proof. Method: A literature review was conducted on the standard of proof in the administrative sanctioning procedure of Indecopi-Peru, the protection of the presumption of lawfulness of conduct and due process; from the interpretation made by Indecopi, the Constitutional Court of Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, from a comparative perspective, Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade). The review was complemented with a heuristic and propositional analysis of the standard of proof applicable to such procedure. Conclusions: The guarantee of due process is integrated by the presumption of innocence (presumption of lawfulness) with recognition in international instruments on Human Rights. The guarantee of the presumption of innocence, as a human right and fundamental right, has several aspects: i) as a rule of treatment in the process; ii) as a rule of evidence (related to the burden of proof); and iii) as a rule of judgment (related to the standard of proof for declaring responsibility). Taking into account that the presumption of innocence as an evidentiary rule requires sufficient evidentiary activity on the part of the investigating body, it must prove the existence of the legally relevant facts under investigation, for which it may use a variety of means of proof, including circumstantial evidence as indirect evidence. In light of the decisions issued by Indecopi, the standard of proof applicable in the administrative sanctioning procedure is that of “knowledge beyond reasonable doubt”, also known as “full conviction” or “certainty”, which requires an adequate and sufficient evidentiary activity by the investigating body. © 2025, Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE). All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.52896/rdc.v13i1.1141
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad de Medellínspa
dc.identifier.issn23182253
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Medellínspa
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.udem.edu.co/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11407/9055
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Derechospa
dc.publisher.programDerechospa
dc.relation.citationendpage160
dc.relation.citationissue1
dc.relation.citationstartpage139
dc.relation.citationvolume13
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105012539624&doi=10.52896%2frdc.v13i1.1141&partnerID=40&md5=da6d846e5e66e9afbabedecbb09455b1
dc.relation.referencesBUSTAMANTE Monica Maria, TORO GARZON Luis Orlando, MARIN TAPIERO Jorge Ivan, El debido proceso convencional: retos para el juez, Justicia y Proceso en el siglo XXI: Desafíos y tareas pendientes, pp. 215-248, (2019)
dc.relation.referencesBUSTAMANTE Monica Maria, La garantía de la presunción de inocencia y el estándar de prueba de la duda razonable, (2014)
dc.relation.referencesBUSTAMANTE Monica Maria, PALOMO VELEZ Diego, La presunción de inocencia como regla de juicio y el estándar de prueba de la duda razonable en el proceso penal. Una lectura desde Colombia y Chile, Revista Ius et Praxis, 24, 3, pp. 651-692, (2018)
dc.relation.referencesCOELHO Dandara Perassa, Uma batalha travada em torno das evidências: o valor probatório dos indícios e sua (in)suficiência para a condenação de carteis, Revista de Defesa da Concorrência, 4, 1, pp. 153-184, (2016)
dc.relation.referencesCONVENCION Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Pacto de San José) (CADH), (1969)
dc.relation.referencesFERNANDES Rosangela Aparecida Soares, JESUS JUNIOR Leonardo Bispo de, Indícios econômicos de cartel na revenda de GLP: o caso da operação “laissez-faire”, Revista de Defesa da Concorrência. Brasília/DF, 11, 1, pp. 25-46, (2023)
dc.relation.referencesFERRER BELTRAN Jordi, Una Concepción minimalista y garantista de la presunción de inocencia, Revista de la Maestría en Derecho Procesal, 4, 1, (2010)
dc.relation.referencesFERRER MAC-GREGOR Eduardo, Reflexiones sobre el control difuso de convencionalidad. A la luz del caso Cabrera García y Montiel Flores vs. México, Boletín mexicano de derecho comparado, Ciudad de México, 44, 131, pp. 293-333, (2011)
dc.relation.referencesGARCIA RAMIREZ Sergio, NEGRETE MORAYTA Alejandra, El debido proceso (adjetivo) en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, La tutela de los Derechos Humanos en la jurisdicción interamericana: aportaciones, recepción y diálogo, (2015)
dc.relation.referencesNIEVA FENOLL Jordi, Fundamentos de derecho procesal penal, (2012)
dc.relation.referencesOCHOA CARDICH Cesar, Límites de la potestad sancionadora del Indecopi y las garantías del administrado en los procedimientos administrativos del Derecho de la Competencia, Ius Et Veritas, Perú, 7, 13, pp. 185-198
dc.relation.referencesConstitucion Política Del Perú 1993, (1993)
dc.relation.referencesLey del Procedimiento Administrativo General, (2001)
dc.relation.references(2017)
dc.relation.referencesMinisterio de Justicia. Decreto Supremo n. 030-2019-PCM. Decreto Supremo que aprueba el texto único ordenado de la ley de represión de conductas anticompetitivas, (2019)
dc.relation.referencesGuía práctica sobre el procedimiento administrativo sancionador: actualizada con el texto único ordenado de la ley 27444, ley del procedimiento administrativo general, (2017)
dc.relation.referencesRAMIREZ CARVAJAL Diana, La prueba en el proceso: una aventura intelectual, (2017)
dc.relation.referencesSALMON Elizabeth, BLANCO Cristina, El derecho al debido proceso en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, (2012)
dc.relation.referencesSAN MARTIN CASTRO Cesar, Prueba por indicios, (2017)
dc.relation.referencesTARUFFO Michele, Observaciones sobre la prueba por indicios, Nuevas tendencias del derecho probatorio, (2015)
dc.relation.referencesTARUFFO Michele, Sobre las fronteras: escritos sobre la justicia civil, (2006)
dc.relation.referencesTARUFFO Michele, Verdad, prueba y motivación en la decisión sobre los hechos, (2013)
dc.rights.accesoRestricted access
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.sourceRevista de Defesa da Concorrencia
dc.sourceRev. Def. Concorr.
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAdministrative sanctioning procedure
dc.subjectConventional due process
dc.subjectIndecopi
dc.subjectPresumption of lawfulness
dc.subjectStandard of proof
dc.titleThe standard of proof of knowledge beyond all reasonableness doubt in the administrative sanctioning procedure of Indecopi-Peru: A view from the presumption of innocence (presumption of lawfulness)
dc.titleEl estándar de prueba de conocimiento más allá de toda duda razonable en el procedimiento administrativo sancionador de INDECOPI – Perú: una mirada desde la presunción de inocencia (presunción de licitud)
dc.typeArticle
dc.type.localArtículospa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Archivos

Colecciones

Indexados Scopus