Analysis highlights challenges of evidence submission in criminal proceedings, suggesting legislative reforms for better balance.
The paper examines the challenges of ensuring the completeness of materials submitted to the court by investigative bodies in criminal proceedings, considering the competing principles of adversarial proceedings on one hand and publicity alongside investigative secrecy on the other. Problematic situations caused by imperfect legislation are revealed using examples of judicial precedents. Specific solutions to the identified problems are proposed, namely, the establishment at the legislative level of the obligation of the prosecution (the prosecutor and/or the investigative body) to provide evidence (materials) to the court specifically at the court hearing. The investigative body may provide the court with some materials in a restricted access mode, i.e., without granting access to all trial participants, including in the electronic form (via the Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System (SIEI) for the judge’s exclusive review). This approach aligns with the evolving concept of the «electronic criminal case», long debated in legal scholarship. While this might initially appear to restrict the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings, it would allow the court making a decision to properly assess the merits of motions, ensuring not only investigative secrecy but also the legality and validity of judicial decisions. Materials submitted confidentially could effectively supplement those presented openly. In addition, in order to study a number of issues, in particular the financial status of a participant in criminal proceedings, it would be very useful for the court to use software tools available to it, such as the software tools of the State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP). Additionally, for certain matters, such as assessing the financial status of a trial participan, the court could leverage available digital tools, for example, State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP), to request and obtain relevant case-related information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. Yu. Safronov (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: