Abstract

This paper deals with the question of truth in law, more specifically: the epistemological status of judicial process. In a phenomenological approach, aims to clarify the importance of facts to the right answer. Proceeds comparing two referentials: the critical realism of Michele Taruffo and the Critical Hermeneutics of Law. In spite of its democratic common ground, there is a deep disagreement about what is meant by inter-subjective control of judgments. The conclusion drawn is to reject the "truth acquiring" structure of justice system as proposed by Taruffo.

Keywords:
Judicial Procedure; Truth; Hermeneutics.