The group aims to (i) investigate the relationship between forensic science, evidence production, and judicial decisions in criminal proceedings, based on constitutional and democratic frameworks, (ii) integrate researchers in Law and Forensic Science to analyze the epistemic quality of expert evidence, its limits, risks, and impacts on criminal justice and the protection of human rights, (iii) examine investigative practices, admissibility criteria and evaluation of evidence, as well as institutional standards of action and the use of new technologies in criminal prosecution. Furthermore, it seeks to establish theoretical, methodological, and normative parameters that qualify expert evidence, strengthen the adversarial process, and assist in making more rational, transparent decisions compatible with the Democratic Rule of Law.
Research line: Evidence, Science, and Guarantees in a Democratic Criminal Process
Description: To investigate the production, admissibility, interpretation, and evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings, based on the articulation between Criminal Procedural Law, Epistemology, and Forensic Science. To analyze the reliability of technical-scientific methods, quality standards, epistemic control of decisions, and the risks of judicial error. To examine the constitutional limits of evidentiary activity, with emphasis on adversarial proceedings, full defense, publicity, equality of arms, and decisional rationality.
Research line: Forensic Science, Structural Violence, and Human Rights
Description: To investigate the role of forensic evidence in contexts of structural violence, such as violence against women, sexual crimes, organized crime, and technological crimes. To analyze how structural inequalities influence the production and evaluation of evidence and to propose parameters for a more inclusive criminal justice system compatible with human rights.