352 clearly stated that inquisitorial cases {rozysknye dela) were those cases in which “someone is caught while committing some misdeed (zlodeistvo) or some serious crime, or is at least partially found guilty, or during the court investigation has proved to be suspect, in these cases rozysk is to be applied, and not sud." Following the proposed legal code of 1725 and the ukaz promulgated in that same year, however, the following exceptions were made fromthis general rule: such misdeeds, which in spite of the fact that they are in themselves zlodeistvo, but where no one has been caught in the act and no one has yet been found guilty of anything, in the case of these deeds the sud procedure is to be applied, and not rozysk . . . until someone has at least partially been found guilty during the sud procedure. In summary, then, the Ukaz o forme suda constituted an organic part of Peter the Great’s administrative and court reforms. With the help of foreign, and especially Swedish, law, trial forms were created which involved an adaptation of procedural law to the new bureaucratic institutions. In its essentials, however, the Russian trial remained largely unchanged. When it comes to the question as to how widely the Ukaz o forme suda was actually applied, there is no certain answer. In order to provide a more complete picture of how trials were actually carried out in Russian courts it would be necessary to make a thorough study of eighteenthcentury legal practice in this area. No such study of the materials in the Russian judicial archives has been undertaken, but this has not kept historians from trying to solve the question. The prerevolutionary Russian legal historian M. F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, whose interpretation was later accepted by Soviet historians, claimed that the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov was used in criminal trials, w'hile the Ukaz o forme suda became the norm for civil procedure. Fie wrote that “already under Peter I, himself, (1724) the application of the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov and the Ukaz o forme suda was divided among all the courts of the empire in this manner: the latter was to be used in the adjudication of civil cases {partikuliarnye), the former in criminal cases {donositel'nye i fiskaVnye). V. N. Latkin, Uchebnik istorii ritsskogo prava perioda imperii {XVIII i XIX stoletiia) (St. Petersburg, 1909), 613. “Inquisitorial justice {rozysk) and adversary justice {sud) meant far less to Peter than to historians sophisticated in modern concepts of procedure. Peter’s objectives were rather to create a new state organization and a new source of bureaucratic personnel in the gentry—a new officialdom—and his legislation on procedure endeavored to bring this new social and institutional order into the courts.” Wortman (1974), 303. **' Vladimirskii-Budanov, 642. Man’kov (1971), 161, wrote the following: “The question of the difference between the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov and the ukaz 19.'> 196 ” 197 195 196
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=