Exclusion of Evidence Collected in Violation of Personal Rights: In Search of a Conceptual Framework

The author explores concepts aimed at explaining why evidence collected in violation of personal rights should be excluded, even at the cost of the truth of the verdict. Four theories stand out: 1) the theory of disciplining investigative bodies; 2) the theory of maintaining the legitimacy of the process; 3) the theory of the full protection of personal rights and 4) the theory of the annulment of unfair advantages. It is noted that the first two concepts cannot justify why excluding evidence is the best solution. The classic way to discipline violators is through legal liability. At the same time, the condemnation of illegal actions may well be expressed in a private court decision. It is also important to consider the risk of a backlash effect resulting from the exclusion of evidence: offenders may not only fail to be deterred but may also feel impunity, and the legitimacy of justice may be undermined by a deliberate departure from the truth (by acquitting the guilty or, conversely, convicting the innocent). The explanatory power of alternative theories is higher, but their action is limited by strict limits. The author concludes that the exclusion of evidence cannot be either a universal tool or an optimal way to protect personal rights in criminal proceedings.

1. Ambos K. Beweisverwertungsverbote. Berlin; 2010.

2. Ashworth A. Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights. Criminal Law Review. 1977:723-735.

3. Damaška M. Evaluation of Evidence. Cambridge; 2019.

4. Damaška MR. Evidence Law Adrift. Yale University Press; 1995.

5. Demandt A. Ungeschehene Geschichte. Ein Traktat über die Frage: Was wäre geschehen, wenn…? Berlin; 2010.

6. Filimonov BA. Foundations of the Theory of Evidence in German Criminal Proceedings. Moscow; 1994. (In Russ.).

7. Foynitsky IYa. The course of the criminal proceedings. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg; 1910. (In Russ.).

8. Golovko LV, (ed.). The course of criminal procedure. Moscow; 2025. (In Russ.).

9. Hartmann W, Pennington K, (eds.). The History of Courts and Procedure in Medieval Canon Law. Washington; 2016.

10. Jackson JD, Summers SJ. The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Cambridge; 2012.

11. Kipnis NM. The admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Moscow; 1995. (In Russ.).

12. Monaghan N. Law of Evidence. Cambridge; 2015.

13. Roberts P. Excluding Evidence as Protecting Constitutional or Human Rights? Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in honour of Andrew Ashworth. Zedner L, Roberts JV, (eds.). Oxford; 2012. P. 171–190.

14. Rogall K. Gegenwärtiger Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Lehre von den strafprozessualen Beweisverboten. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft. 1979;1:1-44.

15. Roxin C. Strafprozeßrecht: Prüfe dein Wissen. München; 1982.

16. Roxin C. Strafverfahrensrecht. München; 2012.

17. Savitsky VM. Before the jury: Guilty or innocent? Moscow; 1995. (In Russ.).

18. Schröder S. Beweisverwertungsverbote und die Hypothese rechtmäßiger Beweiserlangung im Strafprozeß. Berlin; 1992.

19. Spence MJ. The Complexity of Success: the U. S. Role in Russian Rule of Law Reform. Carnegie Papers. 2005;60:1-19.

20. Strogovich MS. Material truth and judicial evidence in the Soviet criminal process. Moscow; 1955. (In Russ.).

21. Thaman SC, (ed.). Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Springer; 2013.

22. Vladimirov LE. The Doctrine of Criminal Evidence. Tula; 2000. (In Russ.).

23. Vyshinsky AYa. The theory of judicial evidence in Soviet law. Moscow; 2006. (In Russ.).

24. Wigmore JH. A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Vol. III. Toronto; 1905.