The truth in criminal procedure

an analysis of the epistemic crisis through the mariana ferrer case

Abstract

The objective of this research is to demonstrate the flaws and inaccuracies in the construction of truth within criminal procedural rites, focusing the analysis on crimes against sexual dignity. It aims to investigate the epistemic crisis and its reflections on female secondary victimization, taking the judgment of the Mariana Ferrer case as a basis. As for the adopted methods, a qualitative approach and the case study technique were used, with data based on the documentary analysis of the judicial sentence and the audiovisual records of the evidentiary hearing. Critical victimology, feminist epistemology, and epistemic injustice are the theoretical frameworks guiding the present study. The results obtained indicate that procedural truth is not absolute or neutral, but a narrative and probabilistic construction influenced by the personal convictions of judges and structural gender biases. In the case analyzed, the victim's discredit through misogynistic strategies and orchestrated institutional passivity was evidenced, constituting testimonial and hermeneutic injustices. Through the analysis of the data obtained, it is concluded that the incorporation of a gender and feminist perspective is essential to confront power asymmetries and ensure human dignity in the judicial environment. The originality of the work lies in the deconstruction of traditional evidentiary assessment from a feminist perspective, revealing how institutional mechanisms operate to remove women from the status of epistemic subjects and reduce them to mere evidentiary objects