Evidence and proving in constitutional proceedings: doctrinal aspects

Abstract

It was noted that the realities of social life, the political situation, global processes of transformation of phenomena and processes require legal accuracy in understanding the fundamental prescriptions specified by the Constitution, as well as ensuring the compliance of legislation with its provisions. Regarding the first question, there are two ways of solving it: detailing the provisions, which to a certain extent creates bulky codified texts that are difficult to apply, or clear, comprehensive formulations of constitutional norms, which provide for the establishment of fundamental principles of the functioning of state power and society, without detailed extended texts. It was noted that the institution of judicial evidence in constitutional proceedings is not as carefully regulated as in proceedings in criminal, arbitration and civil cases.

It is indicated that the constitutional court process is a special environment that differs from other court processes existing in our country: in the field of activity, powers of judicial bodies, subjects, stages, legal force of decisions. Peculiarities of the environment where proof is carried out certainly give rise to specificity in the subject of proof, subjects, content and types of proof. This creates the need for more detailed regulation of proof and evidence in constitutional proceedings. In our opinion, proof is a type of cognitive process that is carried out in the order established by law and covers the activities of subjects involved in constitutional proceedings. And therefore, evidence in constitutional proceedings is a type of knowledge that is carried out in the order established by law and covers the activities of the subjects involved in constitutional proceedings, at the same time it represents a combination of both cognitive and procedural activities. The cognitive component characterizes the process of cognition, and the procedural component characterizes the special form that cognition takes within the framework of the rules of constitutional justice. At the same time, the construction of the subject of proof in constitutional proceedings follows (corresponds) to the construction of the subject of proof adopted in national law. However, we draw your attention, it would be worthwhile to normalize the specificity of the subject of proof in constitutional proceedings as a process aimed at solving legal issues.