STANDARD OF PROOF AND RUSSIAN PROCEDURE LAW: UNKNOWN OR WELL-KNOWN?

Abstract

Though Russian legal science discusses the need to introduce standards of proof in procedural branches of law, different branches of Russian procedural law (civil procedure, sports disputes procedure, criminal procedure) do not directly refer to the standards of proof used. However, this does not mean that this procedural law ignores the doctrine of standard of proof. For the constitution of standards of proof used is either the (1) indirect normative indication of the standard or (2) exemplary decisions of higher courts, sports arbitration. It is necessary to move from indirect, actual use in favor of normatively fixed and defined standard at the level of relevant legal acts. However, there is also a formal obstacle. At all branches of Russian procedural law, the judge (arbitrator) has the right to evaluate evidence freely, according to his inner conviction. This postulate is a two-way street; proving in many ways becomes a subjective procedure with an often not very obvious result for the parties to the dispute. There is also no uniformity within the framework of the procedural branches, which are identical in their legal nature. The branches of civil procedure and sports disputes procedure are private law, but in fact the standards of proof used in them are different. Criminal procedure, as a public branch of legal procedure, uses the strictest standard of beyond reasonable doubt in the trial itself, but resorts to a different standard for resolving issues in the preceding stage of the process. The authors in this article provide a brief overview of the standards of proof in Russian procedural law (civil procedure, sports disputes procedure, criminal procedure) and draw conclusions concerning the current legal regulations of the issue and its possible evolution. The legal establishment of the standard of proof in civil procedure law, sports law, and criminal procedure law needs comparatives. Each of the standards of proof has merits, but their number should not be multiplied in the absence of doctrinal justification. That said differentiation of standards for particular stages of the dispute resolution procedure or types of disputes within civil or sports law procedure is not only permissible but seems inevitable. A similar conclusion can be drawn with respect to differentiating standards of proof for the stages of criminal procedure. The formulation of the content of the standards of proof in civil procedure, sports disputes procedure, and criminal procedure has not been completed to date. It seems that several actions need to be taken. First, to clarify the list of actually used standards of proof. Secondly, to identify the current goals and values of each of the three procedural branches of law (distribution between the parties of the burden of proof). Finally, to formulate the standards of proof for each of the named procedural branches: civil, sports, criminal.