Non-evidential significance of material evidence in criminal proceedings

The article is devoted to identifying the influence of the institute of material evidence in criminal proceedings on the problems of ensuring the property interests of persons involved in criminal proceedings. The author has determined that in addition to its clear meaning, the institute of material evidence has a security, compulsory nature. The comparative method of research allows us to show the unclear place of the institute of material evidence in the system of informal measures of criminal procedural coercion. The author compares individual criminal procedural, arbitration procedural, civil procedural and administrative procedural rules governing the inclusion of material evidence in court cases, their storage, and their disposal after or during the resolution of the case. Such a comparison allowed the author to identify several significant inter-branch differences that are not explained by the specificity of criminal cases. The total prevalence of material evidence in criminal cases and their rare use in other types of court cases cannot be explained only by different standards of proof. The author suggests that in some criminal cases, items (usually expensive ones) are recognized as material evidence not for the sake of the prospect of confirming any facts, but for the sake of ensuring the property interests of victims, civil plaintiffs or other persons. There is no such tendency in other types of legal proceedings; material evidence is not used in them for the purpose of securing or coercion. Specific manifestations of both the compelling need to ensure the safety of any property and its manipulation are associated, among other things, with the powers of the court and investigators to transfer material evidence to their "owners". In civil proceedings, the court is obliged to return material evidence to the persons from whom it was accepted, with some obvious exceptions. In criminal proceedings, there is no goal or means of resolving disputes over the right of ownership of material evidence, so a revision of the relevant rules is needed. The author declares no conflicts of interests.