Provision and evaluation of evidence in a criminal procedure in the light of the requirements of the constitutional and international law

The problem of evaluation of evidence in a criminal procedure is one of the urgent problems of the criminal procedure law. The urgency of this problem stems from the fact that the ultimate fate of the person being prosecuted depends on how well the evidence is evaluated. In the present article the basic aspects of the requirements and standards of constitutional and international law relating to the evaluation of evidence in a criminal procedure are addressed. The analysis of the evidence evaluation rules stipulated by the norms of the criminal procedure law in terms of the norms of constitutional and international law. The possibility of using prejudice in a criminal procedure is considered based on the analysis of the Constitutional Court rulings. It is concluded that prejudice in a criminal procedure may only concern a fact established by a legally effective court decision and may not prejudge the question of whether the act has signs of a crime, or whether the accused is guilty, which should be based on the totality of evidence in a criminal procedure. This totality includes data, previously unstudied in a civil procedure, indicating forgery or falsification of evidence - this kind of evidence is investigated in the procedures established by the criminal procedure law, and may in the future lead to a revision of a civil case. Further, the article discusses the limits of evidence in a criminal procedure; their close link with the problem of evaluation of evidence is stated. It is shown that the accused may be convicted only if the totality of the evidence collected in a case clearly and completely refutes the presumption of innocence, i.e. the assumption that the accused did not commit this crime and evidence collected against them, allegedly testifying against them, is wrong.

Keywords

Authors

References