INGA AVAGYAN

‘‘Private Legal Center’’ Law Firm, Founding Director, Advocate,

Claimant at Gladzor University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-116

Annotation.

Proving is one of the fundamental institutions of the science of criminal procedure and criminal procedural legislation. The process of proving as a complex type of cognitive and creative activity of law enforcement agencies consists of collecting, securing, checking and evaluating evidence in order to establish the circumstances to be established in a criminal case. The institution of evidence and the law of evidence in general received further development and improvement in the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (adopted on June 30, 2021, came into force on July 1, 2022). In the article, the author examines current issues of assessing evidence in the final judicial act. Evaluation of evidence, as an element of the process of proof, is a mental, logical activity, as a result of which the court makes a conclusion about the admissibility, relevance, reliability of each of the pieces of evidence, and the sufficiency of the combination of evidence to reveal the circumstances entering into the subject of proof. In the final judicial acts, the courts are obliged to refer separately to the evidence available in the criminal proceedings and examined during the main proceedings, giving them separate evaluations, and based on the systematic analysis of the examined evidence and the perspective of their integrity, to consider the accusation presented to the accused justified, or to recognize the latter as not guilty. . Courts in their final judicial acts are obliged to fix and evaluate the evidence on which the court’s conclusions are based in terms of admissibility, relevancy and credibility, as well as specify the arguments for considering this or that evidence unreliable. Otherwise, the evaluation of the evidence, as a result of which the formation of the relevant internal conviction of the courts will be subjective in nature, will lead to arbitrariness and the violation of the right of a person to a fair trial, limiting the possibilities of the superior courts to check the legality and justification of the judicial act.

PDF