The constitutional prohibition of the use of evidence obtained in violation of the law in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The work delves into the history of the application of the constitutional rule prohibiting the use in court of evidence obtained in violation of the law. The author achieves the goal of identifying systemic contradictions in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation – a balance between the letter of the law and the search for truth. Since 2017, the courts have begun to sift out only evidence with "significant" violations, leaving a loophole, which is proposed to be called the "principle of good faith violation." However, the boundary between significant and non-essential violations has not been marked. This research made possible to trace the case law transition from rigid formalism to a flexible system for assessing violations. Current case law does not contain clear criteria for assessing the materiality of violations, which creates legal uncertainty and does not allow predicting the outcome of judicial discretion. The methodology of the work is based on the study of acts of the Supreme Court of Russia, using methods of analysis and the comparative legal method. The author proposed, by means of a Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to consolidate the classification of criteria for the materiality of violations, which reflects the novelty of the study. Such a system will stop the "patronage of the prosecution": judges will stop turning a blind eye to violations of the investigation, and the accused will receive predictable guarantees. In order for the idea to work, it is necessary to consolidate the rules in a new resolution of the Supreme Court Plenum, which will become a bridge between the theory of law and judicial reality. The results of the study should be considered as a tool for reform, which will allow achieving a balance between formalism and objective truth. The evolution of approaches to the admissibility of evidence in Russian criminal proceedings reflects a deep conflict between formal guarantees of legality and the pragmatics of law enforcement. The introduction of the "period of objective truth" in 2017, fixed by Resolution No. 51 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, shifted the focus from the unconditional exclusion of evidence violating the law to an assessment of its materiality. This gave rise to the "Principle of Good Faith Infringement", which allows preserving the evidentiary value of materials obtained with procedural violations if the court characterizes them as insignificant. However, the lack of clear criteria for materiality has led to legal uncertainty, weakened protection of the rights of the accused and risks of abuse by the investigation. The dualism between constitutional prohibition and case law threatens the rule of law by transforming procedural guarantees into a flexible prosecution tool.

Constitutional prohibition, evidence, criminal proceedings, proof, exception, admissibility, essential violations, bona fide violation, classification, criminal process