Understanding Evidence and Proof in Legal Proceedings

Evidence and Proof in Legal Proceedings

Evidence: Procedural activity of the parties and the judge, directed towards making the latter's conviction about the truth or certainty of the facts asserted by the party, which takes place mainly in the trial. Only through the evidence carried out at the trial may the legal conviction be formed. The purpose of the evidence is essentially the facts.

Valuation of Proof

Valuation of Proof: The principle of free assessment of evidence, which conforms to the rules of logic, to the maximum of experience and accepted scientific knowledge.

Consequences:

1. The court has the obligation to reason or provide evidence to motivate the result in its sentence. There is no evidence worth more than another.
2. Neither the Supreme Court (TS) nor the Constitutional Court (CT) can come to decide whether the evidence was properly valued or not by the High Court (except in defense's appeal, where there is an error based on documents that prove it).

TS and TC may be analyzed:

1. If minimal evidentiary support existed, produced with due process.
2. If evidence existed that could not reasonably be estimated to charge, that the facts whose certainty of the evidence proves, proving the guilt of the accused.
3. If the rationale for the trial court as justification for the conviction reached, it is reasonable, devoid of arbitrariness, under the principle of free assessment of evidence.

Burden of Proof and Presumption of Innocence

The defendant is not required to prove their innocence, but it is the prosecutor or the judge themselves, who should get the necessary evidence to get convictions. According to Art 24 EC, presumption of innocence, no one can be convicted if there is no full proof of their guilt, which requires that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The obligation to provide evidence imposes the facts underlying the indictment. This burden of proof is not absolute.

If the Supreme Court (STS) tested the fact and the defendant's participation in it, the burden of proof rests with the accusation; the burden shifts to that when he who alleges facts eliminate extreme unlawfulness, guilt, or any other factor precluding the liability of typical facts can be established as per the committed. Innocence ends when there is sufficient evidence and proven facts have been made against the accused.

Requirements to Rebut the Presumption of Innocence:

1. Sufficient incriminating evidence: It is necessary that such proof is incriminating and accusatory. It must relate to offenses, the participation of the accused, and therefore should come referring to the existence of:
   • a) Direct evidence: Consistent fully proven fact and the fact under the law and criminalized.
   • b) Indirect or circumstantial evidence: No match but connected with it appears in a logical way under the rules of human criteria.
2. Test carried out with all Guarantees:
   • Compliance of evidentiary procedure.
   • Immediateness: The practice of evidence put into effect before the judge or court which may well form his conviction by direct contact with material evidence.
   • Contradiction: The defense has to have an effective opportunity to discuss in the oral proceedings and discuss the actual consequences of such proof, so you should be able to participate in its practices or its reproduction in the trial.