On the possibility of objective truth in modern criminal procedure

Why is there a need for a criminal trial? As the law, legislation, and as an activity it provides for correct application of the rules of criminal substantive law. And this is the sole purpose of criminal proceedings. It is by this criterion that the effectiveness of criminal procedure and the optimality of its legislative regulation are judged. Only when the above aim is achieved and the criminal law is applied correctly and effectively the objectives set out in Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation can be considered as resolved. But the objective of criminal proceedings can only be achieved as a result of criminal procedure, the basis of which is proof. The purpose of the proof is to establish the truth. So the truth cannot be the objective of criminal proceedings. It is only a means to correct application of the criminal law, that is a means to achieve the aim of the criminal process. In subjective arguments of objective truth the concepts of "purpose" and "result" are replaced. Nowadays, no one argues that any court verdict sets an objective truth. The truth of the sentence which came into force is only presumed. And this presumption is refutable. The verdict which came into force may be found untrue and cancelled. In any activity, including criminal procedure it is not always possible to solve initial tasks, to achieve the results expected. But this does not mean that one cannot initially aim at what is generally achievable, but not always achieved. Is it possible to achieve an objective (not absolute, of course) truth during criminal procedure? Yes, of course. Otherwise, we move to the position of the long rejected theory of formal proofs, which implies in particular that the best indisputable evidence is one's admission of guilt. After all, the investigator cannot be given the task of achieving a certain formal truth: do this, get that and it will do. The investigator seeks to establish what has happened and how it has happened in the framework of the subject and scope of evidence (but no more). And that is the objective truth. Summarizing the above, it is necessary to draw conclusions: 1. Achievement of objective truth cannot be made the purpose of criminal proceedings. 2. The sole purpose of criminal proceedings (in any of its interpretations) is the correct application of criminal substantive law. If the criminal law applied correctly, then the objectives of both the criminal law and criminal procedure are solved. 3. The purpose of proof in criminal proceedings (and proof is the foundation of criminal procedure) is to establish the objective truth (what has actually happened, but only within the subject and scope of evidence). In turn, establishing an objective truth results in correct application of criminal substantive law. 4. Yet, for many reasons, the truth is not achieved in all cases, so the truth of conviction which came into force is only presumed. And this presumption is refutable.

Keywords

Authors

References