Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 1995,   Articles in work: 337 Declined articles: 791 
Articles and journals | Tariffs | Payments | Your profile

Back to contents

Evaluation of proof in the constitutional judicial procedure of Russia and United States: arbitrary assessment of evidence or standards of proof?
Chirninov Aldar Munkozhargalovich

Ph.D. andidate at the Constitutional Law Department of Ural State Law University

620137, Russia, Sverdlovskaya oblast', g. Ekaterinburg, ul. Komsomol'skaya, 21



The article examines approaches to the assessment of evidence used by Russian and American courts. The main purpose of the paper was to identify the distinctive features of judicial review of legislation that a lawmaker should take into account while selecting optimal rules for the assessment of evidence in constitutional litigation. The author pays particular attention to the epistemological foundations and procedural aspects of a direct perception of evidence that leads to a conclusion on whether or not facts at issue exist. Using methods of comparative law and analyzing in detail the rules on the assessment of evidence, he determines the historical reasons why Russia adopted the concept of free evaluation of evidence, whereas the United States opted for the objective standards of proof, such as preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. The article demonstrates that rules on the assessment of evidence should take into consideration the structural properties inherent to constitutional litigation, including the consequences of the constitutional decision-making process, the necessity to decide constitutional cases on a probabilistic basis, and the generalized nature of facts affecting the constitutionality of laws.

Keywords: constitutional justice, inquisitorial system of justice, adversarial system of justice, standards of proof, free evaluation of evidence, constitutional litigation, assessment of evidence, legislative fact, probability, relevance of evidence



Article was received:


Review date:


Publish date:


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

Averina Yu. A. Teoriya formal'nykh dokazatel'stv i sudebnoe pravoprimenenie // Pravovedenie. 2006. 5. S. 233242.
Aranovskii K.V. O pis'mennom proizvodstve v konstitutsionnoi yustitsii Rossii // Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya. 2011. 2. S. 1824. Dostup iz SPS "Konsul'tantPlyus".
Vyshinskii A. Ya. Teoriya sudebnykh dokazatel'stv v sovetskom prave. 3-e izd., dop. M.: Gosyurizdat, 1950. 308 s.
Gurvich M.A. Printsip ob''ektivnoi istiny sovetskogo grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo prava // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1964. 9. S. 98107.
Lupinskaya P. A. Dokazatel'stva i dokazyvanie v novom ugolovnom protsesse // Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. 2002. 7. S. 58. Dostup iz SPS "Konsul'tantPlyus".
Nakhova E.A. Printsip svobodnoi otsenki dokazatel'stv v sisteme printsipov dokazatel'stvennogo prava v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve // Leningradskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2015. 1. S. 8592.
Fokina M.A. Mekhanizm dokazyvaniya po grazhdanskim delam: dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora yuridicheskikh nauk. Spetsial'nost' 12.00.15 grazhdanskii protsess, arbitrazhnyi protsess / M. A. Fokina; nauch. kons. G. A. Zhilin. M., 2011. 612 s.
Chirninov A.M. Nel'zya ob''yat' neob''yatnoe: predmet dokazyvaniya v konstitutsionnom sudebnom protsesse (na primere Rossii i SShA) // Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2017. 3 (118). S. 91112.
Allen R. J., Stein A. Evidence, Probability, and the Burden of Proof // Arizona Law Review. Vol. 55. 2013. No. 3. P. 557-602.
Chapman N. S. The Jurys Constitutional Judgment // Alabama Law Review. Vol. 67. 2015. No. 1. P. 189-245.
Chayes A. The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation // Harvard Law Review. Vol. 89. 1976. No. 7. P. 12811316.
Clermont K. M. Standards of Decision in Law: Psychological and Logical Bases for the Standard of Proof, Here and Abroad. Durham, North Carolina : Carolina Academic Press, 2013. 298 pp.
Clermont K. M., Sherwin E. A Comparative View of Standards of Proof // The American Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. 50. 2002. No. 2. P. 243-275.
Damaska M.R. Evidence Law Adrift. New Haven-London : Yale University Press, 1997. 172 pp.
Gallagher M. The Legislatures Relationship with the Courts: The Role of Judicial Review in Legislating Wisconsin // Legislating in Wisconsin. 2016. No. 4. P. 1-6.
Hashimoto D.M. Science as Mythology in Constitutional Law // Oregon Law Review. Vol. 76. 1997. No. 1. P. 111153.
Langbein J. H. Historical Foundations of the Law of Evidence: A View from the Ryder Sources // Columbia Law Review. Vol. 96. 1996. No. 5. P. 11681202.
Larsen A. O. Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding // Virginia Law Review. Vol. 98. 2012. No. 6. P. 12551312.
McNaughton J. T. Burden of Production of Evidence: A Function of a Burden of Persuasion // Harvard Law Review. Vol. 68. 1955. No. 8. P. 13821391.
Oliver-Lalana D. Due Post-legislative Process? On the Lawmakers Constitutional Duties of Monitoring and Revision // Rational Lawmaking under Review: Legisprudence According to the German Federal Constitutional Court / ed. by K. Meßerschmidt and D. Oliver-Lalana. Switzerland : Springer, 2016. P. 257294.
Pardo M. S. The Nature and Purpose of Evidence Theory // Vanderbilt Law Review. Vol. 66. 2013. No. 2. P. 547613.
Sward E.E. Values, Ideology, and the Evolution of the Adversary system // Indiana Law Journal. Vol. 64. 1989. No. 2. P. 301355.