Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Actual problems of Russian law
Reference:

Zotov, D.V. Necessary limits of proof in the conditions of concept of free inner conviction of a judge

Abstract: The termination of the formal theory of evidence and provision for the principle of freedom of the inner conviction of a judge was among the outstanding reforms in Russia in 1864. However, the quantity criterion typical of the system of legal evidence was not fully abolished from the new system of evidence. The pre-Revolution lawyers recognized the presence of “dominating evidence” in the criminal process. The issue of dominating evidence remains the manifestation of an artificial theory of evidence and it is related to the definition of sufficient and necessary limitations of proof. The issue of sufficient limitations of proof is not resolved unequivocally. The author uses comparative historical method of studies, works of the Russian scientists on the issues of the reform of criminal judicial proceedings of the 1860s. The criminal legal cognition has its limitations. Its retrospective character and its purpose to uncover the truth of the existing information on the facts presuppose the limitations for the cognitive process. If these limitations to the examination of a crime are expressed in the procedural form established by the law, they are usually called limitations of proof. The limitation of proof is quantity of evidence necessary to be deemed sufficient. The author attempts to define necessary and substantiated quantity of evidence, allowing the subjects of proof to substantiate their positions in a case.


Keywords:

limitations of proof, necessary evidence, necessary limitations, sufficient limitations, sufficiency, dominating evidence, sources of evidence, information approach, the Charter of Criminal Judicial Proceedings, the process of proof.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Belkin R.S. Sobiranie, issledovanie i otsenka dokazatel'stv. Sushchnost' i metody. M., 1966.
2. Levin G. D. Neobkhodimost' i sluchaynost'// Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya/ In-t filosofii RAN. M., 2010.
3. Kokorev L.D., Kuznetsov N.P. Ugolovnyy protsess: dokazatel'stva i dokazyvanie. Voronezh, 1995.
4. Gorskiy G.F., Kokorev L.D., El'kind P.S. Problemy dokazatel'stv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse. Voronezh, 1978.
5. Khmyrov A.A. Kosvennye dokazatel'stva v ugolovnykh delakh. M., 2005.
6. Belkin A.R. Teoriya dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. M., 2007.
7. Teoriya dokazatel'stv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse / Otv. red. N.V. Zhogin. M., 1973.
8. Vladimirov L.E. Uchenie ob ugolovnykh dokazatel'stvakh. Tula, 2000.
9. Dukhovskiy M.V. Russkiy ugolovnyy protsess. M., 1910.
10. Spasovich V.D. O teorii sudebno-ugolovnykh dokazatel'stv v svyazi s sudoustroystvom i sudoproizvodstvom. M., 2001.
11. Korotkikh M.G. Sudebnaya reforma 1864 goda v Rossii (sushchnost' i sotsial'no-pravovoy mekhanizm formirovaniya). Voronezh, 1994.
12. Zarudnyy S.I. Po povodu sudebnoy reformy //Zhurnal Ministerstva yustitsii. 1864. ¹ 12. S. 365-380.
13. Soobrazheniya Gosudarstvennoy kantselyarii o sudoproizvodstve grazhdanskom, ugolovnom i sudoustroystve // Materialy po sudebnoy reforme Rossii 1864 g. T. 18, ch.2.