On dividing evidence into direct and indirect

Abstract

The article analyzes different approaches to the dividing of the evidence into direct and indirect which are explained in the national criminal procedure works. The author expresses critical judgments concerning the position of a number of scientists who consider the relation of the evidence to the general subject of proof as the basis of classification of evidence to the general fact in proof which is currently enshrined in Art.73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the author considers the relation of evidence to the main fact (i.e. a certain person guilty of committing a specific crime) to be the most important element of proof in a particular criminal case and more appropriate and relevant to the traditional understanding which prevails in the national criminal procedure science. Based on this approach, the author proposes to understand the position of the fact, which is being proved, in the frameworks of the fact in proof in a particular criminal case as the basis for dividing evidence into direct and indirect. Moreover, the direct evidence is thought to be those stating the principal fact directly, and indirect evidence establishing it only in a secondary (intermediate, evidentiary) way which further help to establish the truth concerning the principal facts.