Abstract

This paper proposes to adopt the distinction between proof and preparatory access to information when taking a comparative approach to civil procedure. It provides means for functional differentiation of procedural rules regarding factual decision-making. It allows identifying rules aimed at forming the basis for the factual decision making by a judge or a jury (proof) and to distinguish them from rules aimed at providing information to the parties and enabling them to understand the strength of their positions and to make informed decisions on how to further proceed with the case (preparatory access to information). This paper will show how failing to distinguish these two categories can lead to faulty comparative reflections and promote procedural transplants that do not contribute to the improvement of the procedural systems of civil law countries.