Eleven years have passed since the Constitutional Court of Colombiabegan to evident procedural excess (Case T-1306, 2001).In this figure, the work presented here argues that there are two variants, one of which is directly related to the evidentiary issue. In this sense, i.e., when evidentprocedural excess is preached as an error of the trial judge related to thetopic of evidence, and more accurately when reviewing writ he is forcedto practice a certain number of them it is hard not to conclude that withregard to evident procedural excess we are taking over guardianship toa form of last resort in terms of proof, and not only for the protection offundamental rights. Moreover, it can be argued that the ConstitutionalCourt, under the idea that the judge has a duty to pursue the truth, andabove all find it, he ventures into the relevant facts of each case whichinvolves evident procedural excess or, at least, suggests precisely theway forward for the trial judge to give the fundamental right to a party.However, It be must be said that this incursion by the constitutional judge in matters of the ordinary headquarters, is due to, in part, and within the strict limits of the figure discussed here, the fact that in Colombia on matter of evidence we share two systems : the inquisitorial and regulatory system; equally, to the way some rules of procedural law (especially related to - the duty of judges to decree evidence) are expressed, but above all, to an understanding of what the process itself means in relation to the protection of fundamental rights and the prevalence of substantive law.