Abstract
In this article we analyze some situations evidenced in the Colombian criminal process, such as (i) the implications of the trial in the absence of the accused, (ii) the affectation of the congruence between accusation and sentence, (iii) the accounting of the prescription terms, (iv) the differentiation of the archive and the estoppel and (v) the adequate relation of legally relevant facts. Based on them, we questioned if the procedural solution about the different criminal cases, could be avoid the substantial issues and the criminal dogmatic. Using an inductive dynamic and after a bibliographic review, which includes the analysis of the Colombian jurisprudence, we concluded that although the substantive and procedural rules have their own scope of regulation and application, between them should be exist an inevitable fusion, as Bernardo Gaitán Mahecha proclaimed.
Keywords
Eyewitness testimony; Evidential reasoning; Psychology of Testimony