Análisis constitucional comparado y propuesta dogmática para Colombia, frente al estándar probatorio reforzado en la prisión preventiva
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2026
Autores
Sayago Jaimes, Franklin Eduardo
Ardila Quijano, Leonardo Giovanny
Gómez Calderón, Mario Fabiany
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
La prisión preventiva en Colombia enfrenta una crisis que contradice el Estado Social de Derecho. De 101.781 personas privadas de libertad, 23.478 (23.1%) están en prisión
preventiva, evidenciando la desnaturalización de una medida que constitucionalmente debe ser excepcional (INPEC, 2024). El hacinamiento del 24.5% agrava esta
problemática estructural. El problema central reside en la insuficiencia del estándar probatorio de "inferencia razonable" del artículo 308 del CPP, que permite privar de libertad con criterios que no resisten un análisis riguroso de proporcionalidad constitucional. Esto genera una contradicción axiológica fundamental: mientras la condena exige "más allá de duda razonable", el encarcelamiento preventivo acepta "inferencia razonable", invirtiendo la jerarquía constitucional de protección de derechos fundamentales.
Esta práctica vulnera sistemáticamente garantías como la presunción de inocencia, el derecho de defensa y la libertad personal. Aunque la Corte Constitucional (sentencias C
774/2001, T-762/2015) ha establecido criterios estrictos sobre su carácter excepcional, la práctica judicial ha normalizado el encarcelamiento preventivo como medida estándar.
La investigación aborda esta problemática desde una perspectiva constitucional comparada, analizando desarrollos normativos y jurisprudenciales en Chile, Argentina y
Costa Rica, buscando extraer elementos aplicables al contexto colombiano. El objetivo es formular una propuesta dogmática que fortalezca las garantías procesales y
racionalice una medida que actualmente vulnera principios constitucionales fundamentales, equilibrando mejor la presunción de inocencia con las necesidades del
proceso penal.
Pretrial detention in Colombia faces a crisis that contradicts the rule of law. Of the 101,781 people deprived of their liberty, 23,478 (23.1%) are in pretrial detention, demonstrating the distortion of a measure that constitutionally should be exceptional (INPEC, 2024). Overcrowding, at 24.5%, exacerbates this structural problem. The central issue lies in the inadequacy of the "reasonable inference" standard of proof in Article 308 of the Colombian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), which allows for deprivation of liberty based on criteria that cannot withstand rigorous analysis of constitutional proportionality. This generates a fundamental axiological contradiction: while a conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," pretrial detention accepts "reasonable inference," inverting the constitutional hierarchy of fundamental rights protection. This practice systematically violates guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, the right to defense, and personal liberty. Although the Constitutional Court (Judgments C-774/2001, T-762/2015) has established strict criteria regarding its exceptional nature, judicial practice has normalized pretrial detention as a standard measure. This research addresses this issue from a comparative constitutional perspective, analyzing normative and jurisprudential developments in Chile, Argentina, and Costa Rica, seeking to extract elements applicable to the Colombian context. The objective is to formulate a doctrinal proposal that strengthens procedural guarantees and rationalizes a measure that currently violates fundamental constitutional principles, better balancing the presumption of innocence with the needs of the criminal process.
Pretrial detention in Colombia faces a crisis that contradicts the rule of law. Of the 101,781 people deprived of their liberty, 23,478 (23.1%) are in pretrial detention, demonstrating the distortion of a measure that constitutionally should be exceptional (INPEC, 2024). Overcrowding, at 24.5%, exacerbates this structural problem. The central issue lies in the inadequacy of the "reasonable inference" standard of proof in Article 308 of the Colombian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), which allows for deprivation of liberty based on criteria that cannot withstand rigorous analysis of constitutional proportionality. This generates a fundamental axiological contradiction: while a conviction requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," pretrial detention accepts "reasonable inference," inverting the constitutional hierarchy of fundamental rights protection. This practice systematically violates guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, the right to defense, and personal liberty. Although the Constitutional Court (Judgments C-774/2001, T-762/2015) has established strict criteria regarding its exceptional nature, judicial practice has normalized pretrial detention as a standard measure. This research addresses this issue from a comparative constitutional perspective, analyzing normative and jurisprudential developments in Chile, Argentina, and Costa Rica, seeking to extract elements applicable to the Colombian context. The objective is to formulate a doctrinal proposal that strengthens procedural guarantees and rationalizes a measure that currently violates fundamental constitutional principles, better balancing the presumption of innocence with the needs of the criminal process.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Prisión preventiva, Estándar probatorio, Derecho procesal penal, Garantías constitucionales, Derecho comparado
