350 maintained, and that the Ukaz o forme suda was a reform connected with the reconstruction of the court system according to Swedish models, which, with the help of Swedish rules of legal procedure, provided a clear formulation of the procedure referred to as sud in the Ulozhenie}^^ The draft of a new legal code {Proekt Ulozheniia) of 1725 mentioned earlier supports this interpretation. In the first chapter (“O ispytanli zlodeistv i kakimprotsessom vo onykh postupat’ nadlezhit”) of the draft’s section on criminal procedure (“Oprotsesse v kriminal’nykh, rozysknykh i pytochnykh delakh”) it was quite generally stated that the principle of accusatorial procedure in the conduct of trials called for by the Ukaz o forme suda was to be followed in criminal cases. The accusatorial procedure was to be employed “after the suit of the injured party or after the application of he who, in the capacity of avenger of blood (krovootmstiteP) or relative, reports such a misdeed.” In such a case the court was to “proceed according to the ordinary form of trials, with a summons or accusation, responses, evidence, and circumstantial evidence, which is described in the trial in civil matters,” that is, in the draft’s section on civil procedure. The same thing was to apply when, ex officio, the prosecutor reported “such crimes,” which apparently happened when the presumptive plaintiff did not file a complaint. It was emphasized, too, that “the prosecutor shall carefully look after all that is necessary and belongs to the ordinary trial.” The crimes to which these passages referred were not defined in this context. Nonetheless, considerable exceptions were made when it came to the use of adversary procedure in the conduct of trials. Article 3 of this chapter of the proposed law code indicated three categories of criminal deeds for which the court was obliged to proceed in accordance with the inquisitorial, or rozysk, procedure as it was regulated in the Ulozhenie of 1649 and subsequent ukazes,*®® The first two categories covered deeds against the church (“bogokhul’niki i tserkovnye miatezhniki o kotorykh v UloThe correct translation of Ukaz o forme suda should be “the ukaz concerning the form of trials,” since this ukaz regulated the procedures in court, and not, as Wortman translated it, “On the Form of the Court”; Wortman (1974), 303. The Ukaz o forme suda is referred to in the draft of the new law code as protsessnaia forma-, TsGADA, f. 342 delo 31 chast’ 2 1. 82. For a different interpretation, see B. I. Syromiatnikov, “Ocherk istorii suda v drevnei i novoi Rossii,” in N. V. Davydov & N. N. Polianskii, eds., Sudebnaia reforma (Moscow, 1915), 173. TsGADA, f. 342 delo 31 chast’ 2 1. 82. 188 yhe content of the article is almost identical with an ukaz promulgated by the Senate on May 3, 1725, which indicated that the reason for this piece of legislation was that "in some courts that which is stated about villainy {zlodeistvo) in article 5 (i.e., of the Ukaz o forme suda, author’s note) is being interpreted in different ways, causing disorder in the courts.” PS7., VII, no. 4,713, p. 467.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=