On the basis for the classification of evidence into direct and circumstantial

The article analyses the approaches to the basis for the classification of evidence into direct and circumstantial. The author suggests that the basis for the classification be the place of the fact in the structure of the subject of proof in a particular criminal case, with the evidence that establishes the main fact classified as direct and the evidence that establishes only subsidiary (intermediate, evidentiary) facts as circumstantial. The article analyses the approaches to the basis for the classification of evidence as direct and circumstantial described in the Russian literature on criminal procedure. Emphasising the importance of classification of criminal procedure evidence into direct and circumstantial, the author criticises the idea of the basis for the classification of evidence as the relation of evidence to the general subject of proof under Article 73 of the Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure that is shared by a number of Russian processualists. The author believes that it is more appropriate and corresponding to the traditional understanding prevailing in the Russian science of criminal procedure to understand the basis for the classification of evidence as the relation of the evidence to the main fact (i.e., a person's guilt of committing a certain crime) as the key element of the subject of proof in a particular criminal case. Basing on this approach, suggests that the basis for the classification be the place of the fact in the structure of the subject of proof in a particular criminal case, with the evidence that establishes the main fact classified as direct and the evidence that establishes only subsidiary (intermediate, evidentiary) facts, that later are to be used to make a decision about the main fact, as circumstantial.

Keywords

Authors

References