335 the basis of what the parties had stated without actively intervening in the conduct of the trial. With time, however, this free form of trial between parties was transformed into a more regulated procedure in which the judge had a more active role. Instead of a free exchange of statements between the two parties, it became the rule that the judge interrogated both the plaintiff and the defendent.'-^ During the latter part of the seventeenth century, however, the inquisitorial procedure, rozysk or sysk, came into much wider use, something which must be seen in connection with the growth of an absolutist form of government. The government considered the inquisitorial trial, with its deterrent effect, to be a means for both protecting and strengthening the existing political order. The Russian term rozysk described both the concept of investigating and determining the material circumstances, or truth, ex officio (thus such expressions in the Ulozhenie as “syshchetsia pro to dopriama” and “syskivat’ vsiakimi syski nakrepko”) and inquisitorial procedure as a special manner of conducting a trial. It is important to point out in this context that the division between sud and rozysk did not correspond to the modern legal distinction between civil and criminal trial procedure.Seventeenth-century Russian courts made no distinction between material and procedural law, much less any distinction within the latter between criminal and civil law.*-' A ''rozysk case” could be brought before a court when any one of the following conditions was satisfied: policbnoe (corpus delicti), iazychnaia molka (a verbal accusation made under torture), or ohlikhovanie na ohyske (evidence of a crime based on the interrogation of the local population). This procedure then led immediately to the suspect being interrogated with the help of torture. If none of these prerequisites for the implementation of inquisitorial procedure was present, the matter was instead dealt with in the framework of the adversary process, or sud}^^ Only after sufficient evidence had been acquired could such a case be transformed into an investigation by means of inquisitorial procedure. An ukaz issued in 1697 abolished the adversary procedure, or sud, and 125 128 PRP, VIII, 574. Ibid., 576. See B. B. Kafengauz in I. T. Pososhkov, Kniga o skudosti i bogatstve, edited by B. B. Kafengauz (Moscow, 1951), 363—364. >-’ PRP, VI, 144—145. Ibid., 389, 416—417, 485, 488, 501. M. F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkogo prava (St. Petersburg, 1909), 634; G. G. Tel’berg, Ocherki politicheskogo sitda i politicheskikh prestuplenii v Moskovskom gosudurstve XVII veka (Moscow, 1912), 189, 197; see Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 g., XXI: 49, p. 274. 12C 129
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=