Criteria for Admitting Evidence in Legal Proceedings, with a Focus on Witness Testimony

The Importance of Clearly Stating the Facts in Witness Testimony

According to a combined interpretation of Articles 168 and 212 of the CGP, specifying the facts that the testimony aims to prove helps the judge determine its usefulness, relevance, and admissibility. If this requirement is not met, the testimony must be rejected

Recent court rulings have reinforced the importance of clearly identifying the facts to be proven when requesting witness statements in a case. Article 212 of the procedural code establishes that merely listing witness names is not enough; it is mandatory to specify what each witness's statement is intended to prove. This omission, as seen in recent cases, has led to testimonies being rejected for failing to meet the criteria of necessity, relevance, pertinence, and usefulness.

The Supreme Court, in decisions such as STC15020-2018, STC3786-2021, STC9222-2023, and STC11958-2024, has emphasized that clarity in requesting witness testimony is essential to uphold the right to cross-examination and prevent irrelevant or misleading statements. Both the judge and the involved parties must be aware of the purpose of each testimony in advance, ensuring proper preparation for questioning and upholding procedural fairness.

Ensuring the Right to Defense and Cross-Examination

The Third Section of the Council of State has stated that clearly outlining the purpose of witness testimony is not just a formality but serves to:

1.     Allow the judge to control the effectiveness and relevance of the evidence.

2.     Ensure that the opposing party can exercise their right to challenge the testimony 

If the facts presented are vague or ambiguous, the opposing party's right to defense may be compromised, potentially leading to the exclusion of the testimony.

Conclusions

For witness testimony to be properly admitted, the facts it aims to establish must be stated clearly. Simply referring to the claims in the lawsuit is not enough; a precise description of what the testimony intends to prove is required.

Although the judge has the authority to interpret the context of the evidence, to ensure due process, they must specify that the questions posed to the witness will be limited to the facts explicitly stated in the lawsuit. This guarantees a fair cross-examination and ensures procedural equality between the parties involved.

Legal Framework and References

• General Code of Procedure
• Ruling issued on July 4, 2024, by the Council of State, Second Section, Subsection A, in case 70001 23 33 000 2021 00182 01 (3050-2024), presiding Judge Rafael Francisco Suárez Vargas.
• Ruling issued on February 2, 2024, by the Council of State, Second Section, Subsection B, in case 05001-23-33-000-2019-03182-01, presiding Judge Jorge Edison Portocarrero Banguera.
• Ruling issued on February 4, 2025, by the Superior Tribunal of the Judicial District of Bogotá, in case 11001310301520210005301, presiding Judge Adriana Saavedra Lozada.
• Supreme Court of Justice rulings:
• STC15020-2018, Civil Chamber, Justice Ariel Salazar Ramírez.
• STC3786-2021, Civil Chamber, Justice Álvaro Fernando García Restrepo.
• STC9222-2023, Civil Chamber, Justice Octavio Augusto Tejeiro Duque.
• STC11958-2024, Civil Chamber, Justice Hilda González Neira.