Ideology of Inadmissibility of the Suspect’s Testimony

The following rule is axiomatic: «in the course of investigative actions, violation of the rule of law is unacceptable.» Compliance of procedural procedures with this principle is an imperative condition of criminal proceedings. Legality determines the order of investigative actions. Legality and order set the standard procedural form of obtaining evidence that in the adversarial and investigative types of the process entails differing procedural content. This defines the differences in the rules used to evaluate personal evidence due to the ideological attitudes embedded in the construction of the law.

In Soviet law, the form of interrogation was associated with the goal of achieving the truth, which determines the activities of almost all participants in the proceedings. Consequently, undifferentiated actions of the main participants in court proceedings were acceptable to achieve the truth, and the evidence obtained was admissable. The aim of the investigator’s pursuit of the truth assumed that it was permissible for him to use questions of accusatory etymology when receiving the testimony of a suspect. The adversarial principle is implemented in modern law. In this case, the legal order is formed by two parties with the defense initiating questions to the suspect, which is an element of the proper form of obtaining the testimony of the suspect used in their assessment. The formation of evidence is completed by their examination according to the criterion of admissibility in court proceedings. Until the moment of rebuttal of the presumption of innocence, all evidence presented by the prosecution is inadmissible. By proving guilt, the prosecutor proves the quality of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Thus, the quality of admissibility of evidence is acquired simultaneously with the entry into force of the presumption of the validity of the verdict.

1. Galkin BA. The Soviet Criminal Procedure Law. Moscow; 1962. (In Russ.).

2. Karneeva L. Protsessualnoe polozhenie podozrevaemogo v svyazi s proektom UPK SSSR [The procedural standing of the suspect under the draft Code of Criminal Procedure of the USSR]. Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost’ [Socialist legality]. 1954;12:19-21. (In Russ.).

3. Matveev SV. Actual problems of the admissibility of testimony of minor witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings in Russia. Lex russica. 2006;65(5):936-942. (In Russ.).

4. Popov AA. Obtaining explanations and testimony in the criminal process of the Russian Federation: A comparative study of pre-trial proceedings. Pyatigorsk; 2015. (In Russ.).

5. Popov AP, et al. Problems of modern evidentiary law in criminal proceedings. Gaps in Russian Legislation. 2012;6:172-177. (In Russ.).

6. Strogovich M. About the suspect. Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost’ [Socialist legality]. 1961;2:33-38. (In Russ.).

7. Strogovich MS. Logics. Study-guide for students of the Red Army Academy of Military Law. Moscow; 1946. (In Russ.).

8. Strogovich MS. The course of the Soviet criminal trial. In 2 vols. Vol. 1: The main provisions of the science of the Soviet criminal process. Moscow; 1968. (In Russ.).

9. Terekhin VV. Ideological nuances of formation and standard’s application for evidences’ admissibility in criminal process. Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2018;1(45):48- 54. (In Russ.).

10. Vasiliev AA, et al. The conservative legal ideology of Russia: the essence and the state law ideal. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ.).

11. Voskobitova LA. From the departmental interests’ ideology to the Russian Federation Constitution’s ideology and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Trudyi Akademii Upravleniya MVD Rossii [Proceedings of Management Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia]. 2018;1(45):18-21. (In Russ.).

12. Yakub ML. Democratic Foundations of the Soviet Criminal Procedure Law. Moscow; 1960. (In Russ.).

13. Zinchenko IA. Notes to discussions on the grounds for inadmissibility of testimony in the criminal procedure law. The Russian Investigator. 2023;6:20-24. (In Russ.).

14. Zverev AG. The admissibility of the testimony of the suspect in the Russian criminal trial: Author’s Abstract. Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss. Rostov-on-Don; 2006. (In Russ.).