| Abstract [eng] |
The concept of admissibility of evidence has evolved over time and is likely to evolve further. There are currently three essential features of admissibility of evidence: (1) only information obtained from a source or means prescribed by law may constitute evidence; (2) only the means prescribed by law may be used to prove certain facts of a case; and (3) certain circumstances are subject to the prohibition of evidentiary measures. However, contemporary legal doctrine is increasingly focusing on the issue of illegally obtained evidence and its relation to the concept of admissibility of evidence, which points to the need for further development in this area of law. In civil proceedings, audio and video recordings should not only be assessed in accordance with the statutory framework, but also in the light of their presentation in digital form, which allows them to be classified as electronic evidence. In court practice, the issue of admissibility of evidence is often related to the aspect of lawful obtaining of evidence, but the decisions of the Supreme Court of Lithuania are not consistent on this issue. Clearer and more detailed regulation of the admissibility of evidence is necessary to avoid inconsistencies in case law and to ensure the rights of the participants in civil proceedings. Technological developments have a significant impact on the process of assessing evidence. In the future, it is likely that artificial intelligence will help distinguish between authentic and edited audiovisual recordings. However, for the time being, critical thinking on the part of judges and the analysis of metadata, which can help to determine the authenticity and legality of the evidence presented, are of great importance. Metadata is becoming an important tool for avoiding delays and ensuring transparency in cases. While the standard of substantive truth is enshrined in civil procedure, it is also important to ensure the economy of the process, its focus, the protection of human rights and its legality. The lack of clear rules on the admissibility of evidence raises questions about the impartiality of judges. In case law, cases concerning the admissibility of audio-visual recordings as evidence are dealt with differently, which may lead to bias or to the simplification of the search for the substantive truth. Nevertheless, judges in Lithuania are highly qualified professionals and this problem should not be considered systemic. However, clearer regulation would contribute to the rule of law and increase public confidence in the judiciary. |
