quintessential proof of law until the Enlightenment was the confession. The expressions become literally true when uttered, when admitted ("I act under the influence of the Devil" in a process before the Court of the Holy Office, for example). In a world that aspires to know itself scientifically, on the contrary, a different approach to truth emerges. The truth is the measure, it is what results from the technical instruments: It is an essentially documentary truth. Therefore, as we have said, the criminal justice process is based on the discovery of the material truth (but not the civil process, which continues to be inspired by the idea of the parties as owners of the process and, consequently, as owners of the "truth" that it is none other than what they themselves want to express (iuxta ALLEGATA et probata partium). This material truth, naturally, can always be compromised through deception (intentional, negligent, or involuntary—such as the one who deceives himself), and that is why there is the evidentiary phase that must be conducted in court, and documentary evidence (written, recorded) rise to a position of eminence, along with experts as adjudicators of scientific truth. This classic approach has been called into question on two levels recently. On the one hand, technological development has completely exceeded the capacity of the common citizen (and even of justice officials) to understand it. From the CSI effect (the irrational belief in the ability of science to solve cases), to the perplexity of the judge before apparent incontrovertible evidence that turns out to be mere technological montages (the deep fake) or the verification of the racial or gender bias of the presumably infallible and innocent algorithms, has placed the evidence phase in a state of indeterminacy in which, as everything is possible, personal and social motivations, etc., end