But a more recent case about the difference between legal truth and real truth is the case of Jorge Hank Rhon, who was granted his freedom by the Tijuana-based Fourth Unitary Circuit Court because there was no evidence to prosecute him for collecting and possessing firearms for the exclusive use of the armed forces. That is, once a person`s guilt or innocence is declared without allowing any means of challenge, it becomes a legal, legally binding truth, whether public opinion considers that person guilty or innocent. The true truth is that historical truth, which occurred in the reality of the facts, but the legal truth is a truth that can be proven by evidence. Legal truth and material truth. Both terms have recently enjoyed flourishing health among Spanish communicators. Sometimes they present themselves as something opposite, fueling doubts and concerns that should not exist. Let`s clean up the mess. Legal truth is what emerges at the end of a trial in the form of a verdict. And this is the logical consequence of the trials practiced during its celebration.

And for the judgment to be valid, for this search for truth to be effective, it must be carried out under a certain number of essential conditions. The gap between real truth and legal truth must be as small as possible, but we must not lose sight of the fact that “a thousand guilty people are better released than an innocent prisoner, that an accused is released for a good defense than for a bad accusation” and that “the perfect crime is one, which is not investigated”. Legal truth and material truth may never be the same, but most of them are. Most of the time, judicial truth and material truth coincide, but this is not always the case. Material truth, on the other hand, is what corresponds to the reality of the facts. At the time of pronouncing the judgment, the judicial authority is obliged to do so on the basis of the arguments and evidence of the accused and defendant in order to bring the truth as close as possible to the legal truth. And as long as there are gaps in the executive and judicial branches in the presentation and consideration of criminal cases, impunity and this gap between historical truth and legal truth will continue to prevail. “Bridging the gap that exists between the true truth and the legal truth, the formal truth, a gap that, in my opinion, is widening every day, and that in the end, the citizen who lives the true truth, the impunity he feels, is precisely in relation to this truth.

They know that the ultimate goal of criminal justice is to uncover the truth and deliver justice, to punish the guilty if he has committed a crime or to acquit him if he has not done so. By evidence, it is not necessary to understand the objects or evidence collected by the police or the Guardia Civil at the scene of the crime, but it must be considered in its legal sense: it is the questioning of the accused, witnesses and experts of the case, as well as material objects, analyses, reports or documents that are essential to clarify the truth and that are made available at the hearing. become. The legal truth is final and no appeal or evidence of any kind will be allowed against it. An example of the inefficiency of the judiciary is the case of Aldo, a boy who, because he has a name similar to that of a kidnapper, spent eight months in prison before being released. Judges must be independent and impartial and the accused must have a lawyer who can question all parties involved on an equal footing with the prosecutor or private and popular accusations. The so-called equality of arms is reminiscent of the concept of medieval tournaments, but is very precise in its definition. In this case, the PGR could not prove a flagrante delicto, and when the weapons and ammunition were discovered without a search warrant, the evidence was obtained illegally so that it could not be used against the accused. Moreover, sometimes even some say that it is always, every time, so.

And this is not the case. At the opening of the XX National Meeting and the Fourth International Congress of the Judiciary, President Felipe Calderón called on the legislative and judicial branches to put an end to impunity.