The principle of criminality and evidence in traffic offenses: is a psychosomatic report sufficient to justify a conviction?

Abstract

In Ecuador, road accidents generated a legal debate regarding the use of psychosomatic reports as evidence when technical tests such as breathalyzers or toxicology tests were not possible. The objective of this study was to analyze whether such a report could support a criminal conviction without violating the principle of legality or procedural guarantees. The research was conducted using a qualitative approach, employing documentary analysis of current regulations, specialized doctrine, and various judicial rulings related to the subject matter. A regulatory and jurisprudential review strategy was applied, complemented by a doctrinal study that allowed for the identification of critical criteria regarding the validity and scope of the psychosomatic report in criminal proceedings. The findings showed that, although the law permitted the use of psychosomatic reports in cases where the accused refused or was unable to undergo technical testing, there were no specific regulations guaranteeing their standardization or uniform criteria for their judicial assessment. Furthermore, it was found that their subjective nature reduced their reliability and increased the risk of criminal decisions based on weak evidence, which could compromise the right to defense and the presumption of innocence. In conclusion, the study determined that psychosomatic reports should be used only as supplementary evidence, never as exclusive evidence, and recommended the definition of clear regulatory guidelines governing their preparation, admission, and assessment, ensuring criminal proceedings that respect due process and legal certainty.