Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article examines the place and role of indirect (circumstantial) evidence in the process of proof in criminal cases, analysing the views on this issue of both domestic (pre-revolutionary, Soviet, modern) and foreign scholars. Direct evidence is used to confirm the fact in issue or the principal fact (factum probandum), that is, the circumstances to be proved, and circumstantial evidence establishes evidentiary facts (factum probans), which, in turn, allow to draw a conclusion on the existence of the factum probandum. The relationship between circumstantial evidence and factum probans is based on the formula “if ..., then ...”, and the logical connection between factum probans and factum probandum may vary from direct to multi-step. Taking into account the interdependence indicated, the work with circumstantial evidence should be based on the nature of its connection with evidentiary facts, including the search for evidence to support the latter. The inference of relationships between the factum probans and the circumstances to be proved is a subsequent stage in the analysis of circumstantial evidence.
Ekaterina E. Shataylyuk (Thu,) studied this question.