Technological evidence in the ecuadorian judicial system: regulatory scope and challenges in its procedural implementation.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51247/st.v8i4.122Keywords:
Digital evidence, due process, evidentiary assessment, digital justice, procedural regulationsAbstract
The advancement of digital technologies has profoundly transformed the production, collection, and presentation of evidence in judicial proceedings. In Ecuador, the incorporation of technological evidence—such as emails, instant messages, electronic recordings, or digital records—posed significant challenges for judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, who had to interpret it in accordance with due process and current legal provisions. The objective of this study was to analyze the legal treatment of digital evidence in the Ecuadorian context, identifying its regulatory and practical limitations, and proposing recommendations for its proper use in the judicial system. The research was conducted using a qualitative legal-analytical approach, based on a documentary review of national regulations, representative jurisprudence, and comparisons with international standards. This procedure allowed for an evaluation of the legal provisions regarding authentication, the chain of custody, and the evidentiary assessment of digital evidence, aspects considered critical in contemporary judicial practice. The findings demonstrated the existence of regulatory advances that recognized the validity of digital evidence; however, legal and technical gaps persisted, creating risks of arbitrariness and legal uncertainty, especially in criminal and contentious proceedings. It was concluded that overcoming these limitations required strengthening the technical training of judicial officials, harmonizing regulatory frameworks with international standards, and providing the judicial system with adequate tools to guarantee the integrity, reliability, and effectiveness of digital evidence in the administration of justice.
Downloads
References
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime. Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet. Academic Press.
Davara Rodríguez, M. A. (2020). Manual de derecho informático. Aranzadi.
Dávila Peña, C. A. (2024). Análisis e integración de la prueba electrónica en el contexto normativo colombiano: evolución, aplicación y desafíos. Revistas ICDP, (1). https://www.publicacionesicdp.com/index.php/Revistas-icdp/article/view/591
Espinoza-Freire, E. E. (2020). El problema, el objetivo, la hipótesis y las variables de la investigación. Portal de la Ciencia, 1(2), 1-71.
Espinoza-Freire, E. E. (2020). La búsqueda de información científica en las bases de datos académicas. Revista Metropolitana de Ciencias Aplicadas, 3(1), 31-35.
Espinoza-Freire, E. E. (2020). La investigación cualitativa, una herramienta ética en el ámbito pedagógico. Conrado, 16(75), 103-110.
Espinoza-Freire, E. E. (2022). Ética en la investigación científica. Revista Mexicana de Investigación e Intervención Educativa, 1(2), 35-43.
Espinoza-Freire, E. E. (2025). Estrategias de búsqueda de información en bases de datos científicas: Una guía práctica. Sociedad & Tecnología, 8(S2), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.51247/st.v8iS2.226
Farmer, D., & Venema, W. (2004). Forensic Discovery. Addison-Wesley.
Fuentes-Águila, M. R., Castellanos-Fuentes, P. E., Bedón-Garzón, R. P., & Ávila-Urdaneta, J. G. (2025). Ley Orgánica de Garantías Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional comentada, concordada, anotada y con reflexiones teórico-prácticas. Parte I. Editorial UMET.
Fuentes-Águila, M. R., Díaz-de Perales, A. V., Brito-Febles, O. P., Sarango-Aguirre, H., Castillo, F. J., & Ramírez-de Castillo, A. (2024). Perspectivas de la prevención como estrategia del control social en Ecuador. Editorial UMET.
Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. Oxford University Press.
Han, B. C. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford University Press.
Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2017). Cybercrime and Digital Forensics: An Introduction (2a ed.). Routledge.
Medina-Peña, R., & Torres-Espinoza, J. J. (Coord.) (2024). El neoconstitucionalismo en la protección de los nuevos derechos. Sophia Editions.
Miranda Vázquez C. (2020). La fase dialéctica de la audiencia previa. Justicia: revista de derecho procesal, (1), 413-456. http://hdl.handle.net/10230/69396
Pérez Luño, A. E. (2017). Derechos humanos, estado de derecho y constitución. Tecnos Madrid.
Plaza Castillo, M., Ramos Gaibor, J., Arias Romero, N., & Sangucho Verdezoto, C. (2024). La adaptación de los sistemas jurídicos a la tecnología y la inteligencia artificial: Desafíos y oportunidades. Polo del Conocimiento, 9(11), 204-214. https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v9i11.8269
Schofield, D. (2011). Virtual evidence in the courtroom. En H. Yang & S. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in virtual worlds and environments (pp. 200–216). IGI Global.
Sotillo Antezana, A. R. (2015). La nueva clasificación de los derechos fundamentales en el nuevo constitucionalismo latinoamericano. Ciencia y cultura, 19(35), 163–183. http://www.scielo.org.bo/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2077-33232015000200009
Susskind, R. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press.
Vanegas, J. (2013). Evidencia digital y cadena de custodia [Tesis de Grado, Universidad Piloto de Colombia].
Zavala Egas, J. (2010). Teoría de la seguridad jurídica. Iuris dictio, 12(14). https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v12i14.709.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Estephany Monserrath Ojeda-Sánchez, Sandra Liseth Santo-Cofre, Pablo Miguel Vaca-Acosta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
