Determination of Evidence Relevance Assessment by the Type of Criminal Proceedings

The article investigates the determination (conditionality) of the assessment of evidence relevance by the historical type of criminal proceedings. Based on a comparative-historical analysis, the author sequentially examines how the fundamental principles of the inquisitorial, adversarial, and mixed types of proceedings shape different models for establishing the connection between evidence and the subject of proof. It is proven that in the inquisitorial model, the assessment of relevance is monopolized by the investigating judge and subordinated to the formal theory of evidence, excluding adversariality. In the adversarial model, relevance is formed through the confrontation of subjective evaluations by the prosecution and the defense, while the court performs an arbitral function. The mixed type, synthesizing elements of both approaches, generates an internal conflict between the inquisitorial logic of preliminary investigation and the adversarial logic of judicial proceedings, which can lead to contradictions in determining the scope of relevant evidence in a single case. The author concludes that further strengthening of adversarial principles is promising as they best align with the objectives of justice.