Critical Analysis of Judicial Evaluation of Evidence in Traffic Offenses

• Autores: Paucar Tatamues, Martín Amador, Palacios Bastidas , Daniela Osmara, García Segarra , Holger Geovanny
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2026
• Institución: Universidad José Carlos Mariátegui
• Repositorio: Revista ciencia y tecnología para el desarrollo UJCM
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:ojs.revistas.ujcm.edu.pe:article/347
• Enlace del recurso: https://revistas.ujcm.edu.pe/index.php/rctd/article/view/347
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Valoración probatoria; Infracciones de tránsito; Discrecionalidad judicial; Presunción de inocencia; Garantías constitucionales

This study critically examines the evaluation of evidence in traffic violation proceedings, highlighting its direct impact on the effective protection of fundamental rights and the legitimacy of judicial decisions. Using a qualitative approach, it analyzes the perceptions of legal professionals regarding the criteria employed by judicial officers when assessing evidence. The findings reveal a tendency to favor technical or expert evidence, which in many cases limits a comprehensive assessment of the facts and compromises essential principles such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a defense. Furthermore, the study notes the lack of clear evidentiary rules in expedited proceedings, which expands the scope of judicial discretion and weakens legal certainty. In this context, the study underscores the need to strengthen judicial reasoning, consolidate coherent evidentiary criteria, and promote specialized training that contributes to more reasoned and transparent decisions, consistent with a constitutional state governed by the rule of law.