Abstract

What does a judge do when he utters an evidentiary statement (it is proven that p)? Answering this question requires to explicit the epistemic, interpretative and axiological dimensions involved in the issuance of an evidentiary statement. It also requires turning to the pragmatic philosophy of language to elucidate the conceptual scope of the notion of illocutionary force. In accordance with the classifications of the evidentiary discussion, I argue that the judge does not describe that p is proven, but based on the constitution of evidentiary sufficiency, he ascribes that character to p. © 2025 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. All rights reserved.