Proof and proving: legislative technique of criminal procedure laws of the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation

Abstract

Proof and proving lies at the heart of criminal procedure regulation, significantly impacting the quality of law enforcement. In the post-Soviet states that once shared a unified legal system during the USSR dissolution, original criminal procedural laws emerged, exhibiting intriguting examples of evidence and proof rules’ layout. The purpose of the study is to discern the distinct design characteristics of evidence and prove institutions in the criminal procedure laws of the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation. The study’s methodological framework rests upon the general scientific principles of cognition such as objectivity, comprehensiveness, pluralism, and historicism. It employs historical, formal-logical and comparative methods, as well as document analysis. By comparing the normative models of evidence and proof institutions in Moldovan and Russian criminal procedure laws, a shared approach to the concept of evidence as a fusion of form and content becomes apparent. Distinct features of the Moldovan criminal procedure law include the systemic and structured arrangement of evidence rules, the formal adoption of the concept of a means of proof, and precise use of terminology. Conversely, the Russian criminal procedure law disperses evidence rules actoss general and specialized sections, leading to regulatory duplications and terminologicals inaccuracies. The historical roots of the evidence and proof institution layout trace back to November 20, 1864, Charter of Criminal Procedure. The Charter’s systematization of norms reflected the nuances of the pre-revolutionary Russian process. Despite the subsequent stage structuring evolution during the Soviet era and procedural form differentiation, the Soviet legislator retained the pre-revolutionary rules’ systematization on evidence. Presently, the current criminal procedure law maintains much of the previous regulatory content, highlighting essential areas for enhancement in evidence and proof institution design to allign more closely with the process’ stage structure and procedural form differentiation, thus mitigating potential abuse of rights. Addressing these design shortcomings is crucial. Rectifing Russian legistation following the comparative study allows drawing insights from Moldova’s legislative experience.