349 It is clear from this comparison that, in relation to its Swedish model, the Ukaz o forme suda reduced the number of circumstances which could serve as lawful excuses. According to the Swedish statute on trials, the judge had the authority to determine on his own whether circumstances other than those listed in the law constituted legal excuses. In Russian legal historical scholarship, the Ukaz o forme suda of 1723 has been considered contradictory in relation to earlier legislation on procedural law during the reign of Peter the Great, and therefore it has been interpreted in extremely different ways.'®- As mentioned earlier, an ukaz issued in 1697 stipulated that the inquisitorial procedure, rozysk, was to serve as the norm in all trials. Thereafter, the Kratkoe izohrazhenie protsessov, or legislation on military legal procedure, of 1716 introduced a detailed regulation of inquisitorial procedure which historians have incorrectly believed was then applied in the civilian courts, as well. The Ukaz o forme suda of 1723, on the other hand, clearly established the very opposite principle; with the exception of misdeeds against the state, the adversary principle was to be observed in all trials. How are we to explain the contradictory nature of this legislation? It has been argued in more recent Soviet legal historiography that “the changes Introduced with the ukaz ‘O forme suda’ do not appear to have been of such a fundamental nature as it may at first appear, argument which has been presented in support of this opinion is that the sud and rozysk may not have been considered by the legislators to be completely opposite concepts for the conduct of trials.'®^ In addition, it has been argued that it is impossible to draw any clear distinction between sud and rozysk, since there were inquisitorial elements in the adversary procedure, and vice versa. It is also pointed out that the differentiation made in the Ulozhenie of 1649 between sud and rozysk was followed even after the ukaz of 1697, which did not, therefore, entirely revise legal practices in the conduct of Inquisitorial procedure. Finally, historians have referred to the fact that the Ukaz o forme suda itself mentioned its own continuity with earlier legislation on procedural law. Among other things, the Introduction to the ukaz stated that “since many ukazes concerning the formof trials have been written earlier, fromwhich a compilation has now been made, and the form prescribes more precisely how one is to judge. There is a great deal of evidence, then, to support the idea that the distinction between sud and rozysk made by the Ulozhenie of 1649 was PRP, VIII, 567—570. Ibid., 569. WORTMAN (1974), 306. PRP, VIII, 569. ” 18:$ One ” 185 lH-2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=