Freedom of keeping and evaluation of evidences by a court: the Russian experience

Abstract

Abstract

The subject. In recent years, the concept of “standard of proof” has been attracting increasing attention from Russian researchers of procedural law. However, its interpretation in legal literature is diverse, ranging from detailed explanations to mere references. The standards of proof vary depending on several factors, such as the scope of evidence (which is influenced by the specific nature of the industry or legal institution, the category of the case, the stage of proof, or the individual circumstances), the nature of dispute resolution (whether it is judicial or non-judicial, including pre-trial and arbitration proceedings), the participants in the proof process, and the distribution of the burden of proof between them and the court. The purpose of the study. To analyze the extent to which the court has freedom to collect and evaluate evidence in Russian arbitration, civil, and criminal proceedings. Methodology. The authors used the method of monitoring the norms of Russian Federal Acts, the method of analyzing, and the method of comparing the analysis results. The main results. It should be noted that in civil and arbitration proceedings, the court has the right and obligation to: base its research on the information provided by the parties; influence the proof of legally significant circumstances by determining their scope and presenting certain circumstances for discussion by the parties; initiate the collection of evidence by the parties and thus compensate for their lack of evidence-gathering activity; to comprehensively, fully, and objectively examine the evidence in the case by conducting judicial and investigative actions together with the parties. In the criminal process, in terms of the court’s freedom to evaluate evidence: evidence becomes legally valid only if it is sufficient to resolve the criminal case; are recognized as inadmissible and excluded from the list of evidence at any stage of the criminal proceedings, up to the entry of the verdict into force; the legislator does not prohibit, when considering the case on the merits, a repeated appeal to the issue of admissibility of a previously excluded evidence. Conclusions. In the modern Russian legal system, there is no clear and unambiguous normative regulation of “standards of proof” in relation to different bodies authorized to resolve disputes, as well as their differentiation within individual branches of procedural law. The standard of proof can be interpreted as a legal requirement addressed to the law enforcement officer and participants in the process, who must determine, based on their internal conviction, whether the collected evidence is necessary and sufficient to resolve the dispute, taking into account their authority and responsibilities for protecting private or public interests.