341 primarily on the basis of Swedish procedural law, the Ulozhenie of 1649, and subsequent ukazesd’’^ It is clear, therefore, that the ukaz of 1716 did not elevate the Kratkoc izohrazhenic protscssov to the status of a general act of procedural legislation to be applied to civilian, as well as military, courts. In spite of what has been said above, however, one cannot deny the importance of the Kratkoc izohrazhenic protsessov for the development of Russian procedural lavz during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This influence was especially important when it came to the act’s thorough and detailed directives as to how various types of evidence should be evaluated by the court. The legal evaluation of evidence based on socalled rational evidence became an important element in the procedural norms which the absolutist state strove to establish. This legal order of evidence helped to promote the interests of the regime by limiting the freedom of action of the courts, at the same time that it was naturally considered to be an effective means for establishing the “real truth.” It is not possible here, however, to determine the extent to which the procedural norms prescribed by the Kratkoe izohrazhcnie protsessov were observed in the courts. Such a task would require an extensive investigation of Russian court practices during the eighteenth century. The prerevolutionary Russian historian D. A. Korsakov correctly appraised the importance of military court procedure when he wrote that: the entire influence of military trial procedure on civilian trial procedure must, at that time, have been limited to an application of the regulation on military trials to such portions of the civilian process for which the former was more completely and better developed, such as in the case of the theory of conflict of interests, evidence, oaths, and so on. Korsakov’s opinion is confirmed by the law' code drafted by the commission on the laws of 1720. As an example, one can mention the fact that the Kratkoe izohrazhenie protsessov w'as taken into consideration as a source in the formulation of rules of evidence for both the civil and criminal procedure portions of the proposed law code.*^^ As for the draft’s procedural law in its entirety, however, the Ulozhenie of 1649 served as a much more important model than did the military trial procedure. This is also substantiated by w'hat can be seen in the Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, first published in 1832. It is indicated in this law collection’s 152 TsGADA, f. 342 delo 31 chast’ 2 II. 80—90. Sec Korsakov’s comments on K. D. Kavelin, "Reformy, proisshedshic v sudoustroistvc i sudoproizvodstvc pri Petre Velikom i v posleduiushchic tsarstvovaniia, do uchrezhdeniia o guberniiakh (1696—1775),” in idem, Sobranie sochinenii, edited by D. A. Korsakov (4 v., St. Petersburg, 1897—1900), IV, column 414. TsGADA, f. 342 dclo 33 chast’ 1 11. 241—307; delo 33 chast’ 2 11. 154—159. 153
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=