The implementation of the appointment of criminal proceedings, regulated by the Art. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, presupposes cognitive as well as formal and logical activities of the official conducting criminal proceedings, which includes the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence. The evaluation stage of legal cognition causes fierce discussions among the scientists-processivists both in view of the complexity of determination of its essence and due to the lack of a constant regulation of the criteria for assessing evidence that directly influences the decision of the verdict and is not only legal but also political. The research conducted within the framework of the scientific article allows us to state that the evaluation of evidence in its content is a unity of the thinking and legal components. The thinking component (the inner side) consists in analytical activity subordinated to logical laws and aimed at determining the presence or absence of such properties of evidence as relevance and admissibility. The procedural and legal component (external side) characterizes the legal form of the relevant activity, the result of which is an interim or final decision on the criminal case. Based on the analysis of law enforcement practice the author comes to the conclusion that the greatest difficulty in the activities of the court is the application of the provisions of the criminal procedure law that establish a list of inadmissible evidence, both because of internal contradictions and because of the excess of the most-favored-nation rule to the defense side. In connection with this it is proposed to insert in Art. 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the amendments and supplements that presuppose the establishment of a criterion of the essentiality (ineradicability) of a violation of the criminal procedural law when the evidence is inadmissible. At the same time in the author’s opinion those that entail the deprivation or restriction of the constitutional rights and freedoms of participants in the criminal process or in some other way affect the reliability of the evidence obtained can be attributed to irreparable (material) violations of the criminal procedure law.
Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and
Criminal Proceeding of the Voronezh State Agrarian Emperor Peter I University,
PhD. in Law
, e-mail email@example.com
1. Averin A. V. Istina i sudebnaya dostovernost’ (postanovka problemy) [Truth and judicial certainty (statement of the
problem)]. St. Petersburg, 2007. 466 p. (In Russ.).
2. Alekseev N. S., Daev V. G., Kokorev L. D. Ocherk razvitiya nauki sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa [Essay on the
development of science of the Soviet criminal process]. Voronezh, 1980. 251 p. (In Russ.).
3. Belkin R. S. Sobiranie, issledovanie i ocenka dokazatel’stv. Sushchnost’ i metody [Collection, study and evaluation of
evidence. Essence and methods]. Moscow, 1966. 295 s. (In Russ.).
4. Bozrov V. M., Kostovskaya N. V. Ocenka dokazatel’stv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Evaluation of evidence in criminal
proceedings]. Mirovoj sud’ya – The justice of the peace. 2012. Iss. 9. P. 10–18. (In Russ.).
5. Kassacionnoe opredelenie po ugolovnomu delu № 22-1164 [Cassation determination in criminal case No. 22-1164].
Availabel at: https://rospravosudie.com/court-voronezhskij-oblastnoj-sud-voronezhskaya-oblast-s/act-104214979/
(accessed 04.05.2018). (In Russ.).
6. Kassacionnoe opredelenie sudebnoj kollegii po ugolovnym delam Voronezhskogo oblastnogo suda [Cassation
determination of the judicial collegium in criminal cases of the Voronezh regional court]. Availabel at: https://rospravosudie.
com/court-voronezhskij-oblastnoj-sud-voronezhskaya-oblast-s/act-103663424/ (accessed 03.05.2018). (In Russ.).
7. Kostenko R. V. Problemy pravovyh posledstvij narusheniya pravil dopustimosti dokazatel’stv v ugolovnom processe
[Problems of the Legal Consequences of the Violation of the Rules for the Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Procedure].
Sovrem. pravo – The modern law. 2014. Iss. 8. P. 83–89. (In Russ.).
8. Kurylev S. V. Dokazyvanie i ego mesto v processe sudebnogo poznaniya [Proving and its place in the process of judicial
knowledge]. Tr. Irkutskogo gos. un-ta im. A. A. ZHdanova. Т. 13 – Scientific works of Irkutsk State A. A. Zhdanov University.
Vol. 13. Irkutsk, 1955. P. 37–67. (In Russ.).
9. Mihajlovskaya I. B. Nastol’naya kniga sud’i po dokazyvaniyu v ugolovnom processe [The judge’s bench book for proving
in criminal proceedings]. Moscow, 2008. 192 p. (In Russ.).
10. Nauchno-prakticheskij kommentarij k Ugolovno-processual’nomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii / pod red.
V. M. Lebedeva [Scientific and practical commentary to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation : ed. by
V. M. Lebedev]. Moscow, 2008. 1170 p. (In Russ.).
11. O vnesenii izmenenij v Ugolovno-processual’nyj kodeks Rossijskoj Federacii : feder. zakon ot 17.04.2017 № 73-FZ [On
Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation : Federal Law from 17.04.2017 No. 73-FL]. Access
from the legal reference system «ConsultantPlus». (In Russ.).
12. O primenenii sudami norm Ugolovno-processual’nogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii : postanovlenie Plenuma
Verhovnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii ot 05.03.2004 № 1 (red. ot 01.06.2017) [On the application by courts of the norms
of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation : Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation from 05.03.2004 No. 1 (in red. on 01.06.2017)]. Access from the legal reference system «ConsultantPlus». (In
13. Po delu o proverke konstitucionnosti polozhenij statej 125, 219, 227, 229, 236, 237, 239, 246, 254, 271, 378, 405 i
408, a takzhe glav 35 i 39 Ugolovno-processual’nogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii v svyazi s zaprosami sudov obshchej
yurisdikcii i zhalobami grazhdan : postanovlenie Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii ot 08.12.2003 № 18-P [In the
case on the verification of the constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 125, 219, 227, 229, 236, 237, 239, 246, 254, 271,
378, 405 and 408, as well as Chapters 35 and 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection
with the requests of the courts general jurisdiction and complaints of citizens : Decision of the Constitutional Court of the
Russian Federation from 08.12.2003 No. 18-P]. Access from the legal reference system «ConsultantPlus». (In Russ.).
14. Prigovor Liskinskogo rajonnogo suda Voronezhskoj oblasti [The verdict of the Liskinsky District Court of the Voronezh
Region]. Availabel at: https://rospravosudie.com/court-liskinskij-rajonnyj-sud-voronezhskaya-oblast-s/act-102982876/
(accessed 06.05.2018). (In Russ.).
15. Selina E. V. Sredstva dokazyvaniya v rossijskom ugolovnom processe: vchera, segodnya, zavtra [Means of Evidence in
the Russian Criminal Process: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow]. Advokat. praktika – Lawyer practice. 2015. Iss. 5. P. 39–42. (In
16. CHebotareva I. N. Asimmetriya pravil dopustimosti dokazatel’stv [Asymmetry of admissibility rules for evidence]. Ros.
sledovatel’ – Russian investigator. 2013. Iss. 19. P. 14–16. (In Russ.).