353 Even ignoring what has been said above against the idea that military trial procedure was extended to general use in the civilian courts, it is impossible, when it comes to the application of the Ukaz o forme suda, to draw any general conclusions from the source Vladimirskii-Budanov cited in support of his thesis. The source he cited was an ukaz from the krigs-kollegiia issued on November 30, 1724. This ukaz was promulgated in response to the uncertainty which emerged in the military courts concerning their application of the Ukaz o forme suda. The ukaz stated that the college had received an inquiry from the commandant at St. Petersburg. Brigadier General Bakhmiotov, as to whether, “now and in the future, interrogations and courts martial of both officers and soldiers in the cases of their crimes are to be conducted in accordance with the previous procedure or in accordance with the form mentioned above.” The krigs-koUegiia therefore confirmed that, “according to that form, one is to give a respite to the defendent only in disputes between them, in civil cases {partikuliarnye dela), except for prosecutors’ and adversary cases which concern His Imperial Majesty’s interest, because in that form it speaks more of plaintiffs and defendents. As is clear from this quotation, the ukaz was meant for the military courts and cannot therefore be interpreted—as Vladimirskii-Budanov has incorrectly done—as a legislative act valid for all the courts of the realm. The ukaz states neither more nor less than that, in military justice, the Kratkoe izohrazhenie protsessov was to be applied in fiskal'nye i donositelei donosheniia, while the Ukaz o forme suda was to apply to partikuliarnye dela. Formally speaking, the procedural legislation of the Petrine period remained valid until the great procedural reform of 1864.-““ In the Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, the collection of laws first published in 1832, ” 198 199 of 1723 has, in our point of view, been solved most correctly by M. F. VladimirskiiBudanov. He writes that the Kratkoc izobrazhenie protsessov was originally applied in the military courts, while the Ukaz o forme suda was applied in the non-military courts. Later on, the former began to be applied in criminal cases, and the latter in civil cases. The draft distinguishes sufficiently carefully between criminal and civil law; the former is presented in book 3, and the latter in book 4. In accordance with this, procedural law is also divided. Aside from questions concerning the court system and the jurisdiction of the courts, book 1 also contains general rules for accusatorial trials; book 2, on the other hand, is devoted to the norms of the inquisitorial trial. According to what the authors of the legal code stipulated, inquisitorial trials should be used in ‘criminal cases.’" As the analysis in the body of the text above clearly shows, however, Man’kov’s interpretation of the draft’s statements on procedural law is incorrect. P52, VII, no. 4,607, 380—381. Ibid., loc.cit. L.\tkin (1909), 623. 200 - I'eteraou
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=