| Abstract [eng] |
This master thesis provides analysis of of the subject matter and limits of evidence in criminal procedure, examining the conclusions presented in doctrine, the provisions of the significant legal acts and case law interpretations. This topic is most revealed through the prism of the perception of the substantiation process as a complex of cognitive, confirmatory and logical-argumentative actions aimed at identifying the facts relevant to the criminal case, necessary for making procedural decisions and establishing the truth in a case, that takes place during the pre-trial investigation and the trial. The thesis distinguishes the basic requirements for evidence and analyzes its relationship with the subject matter and limits of the evidence. There is revealed the concept of the subject matter, analyzed the basis for determining the subject of matter in each criminal case, the practical significance of its determination in organizing a purposeful investigation and a high-quality trial. A comparative analysis of the legislative regulation of states made it possible to draw conclusions about the general content of the subject matter, the necessity of formalizing the facts to be proved in each criminal case in the Criminal Procedure Code, to understand the dynamics of the subject matter in the course of the criminal procedure and, after summarizing the national legal regulation, to present a dichotomous structure of the general subject matter. It also distinguishes the groups of facts that constitute the content of the general subject matter and analizes the individual facts to be proved in order to assess the problematics and significance of their proof, which are revealed in doctrine and case law. The thesis reveals the concept of the limits of evidence, examines the relationship between the subject matter and limits of evidence and distinguishes factors that do not allow to define the limits of evidence in legal acts. Due to an analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania are revealed the main procedural rules in terms of the limits evidence. |
