On the incompatibility of self-sufficient adversarialism with objective truth in the adversarial code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation

Purpose of the study. For the author, the purpose of the study is to recognize materialist dialectics, as an objective law, as a truly scientific methodology, since dialectics is global, universal – it inevitably manifests itself in the world, nature and in human thinking; its rules and logic must be taken into account in criminal proceedings. Dialectics is inextricably linked with objective truth. The objective-true model of the criminal process corresponds to the scientific requirements of dialectics, in contrast to the current adversarial criminal process in Russia with its self-sufficient adversarialism, excluding objectivity and truth – a process that does not take into account the scientific requirements of dialectics about the inadmissibility of erasing differences between opposites, such as truth and error, goal and means, form and content, probability and reliability, presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt, inevitability of responsibility and impunity. Hence, it is impossible to erase the differences between formal legal and objective truths, between adversarial and objective-true models of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the objective-true model of the criminal process is a higher type of process than the adversarial criminal process with its “right of the powerful”. The purpose of the study also includes solving in the well-known legal dictum that “no case of crime should go unsolved”, the requirement for reliable, objective-true solving of each crime (counteracting the crime) and the requirement for the inevitability of punishment for the crime, which has an important preventive, proactive meaning for crime. Conclusions. As a result of the research, the author comes to the following conclusions: materialist dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion of both the objective world and human thinking; its rule about the inadmissibility of erasing the distinction between opposites should also be applied in criminal proceedings. The objective-true model of criminal proceedings, in contrast to the current adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, meets the scientific requirements of materialist dialectics and represents a higher type of criminal process. The legislator in the adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, contrary to the requirements of dialectics, erases the distinction between form and content, goal and means, turning adversarialism (that is, a means) into an end in itself of the process, which excludes objective truth. An attempt to combine formal legal truth with objective truth in the adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation seems to be an unscientific approach, since it is necessary to observe a rigid alternative: either formal truth (legal, procedural, judicial, “the truth of the winner of the argument of the parties”), or objective truth. A third is not given. The well-known legal provision that “no case of crime should go unsolved” contains not only the requirement for the need to reliably disclose every crime (counteracting the crime), but also has an important preventive, proactive meaning, leading to a reduction in crime. The modern adversarial Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not provide for such a requirement for the inevitability of responsibility of the perpetrators.