82 1680s.The War Articles were considered to apply to all criminal cases.In these statutes, we see how the different modes of proof were related toeach other. In the War Articles, full proof was necessary for conviction in all a'iminalia (art. 22). Full proof consisted of a confession or witnesses (art. 23). If the plaintiff could produce a half-proof {“halfzve skähl”), if there were presumptions {“tekn och liknelser, som eliest kallas Presumtioner”) or if there was a wellfounded suspicion against the accused {“uppenbart och allmänt rykte, sompå sannelike skiähl grundat är”), then the accused was responsible for proving his or her innocence. This was done by a purgatory oath which had to be taken not only by the accused, but, in addition to that, by six or twelve oath-helpers {“sex eller tolfandre redelige troxvärdige Män”) (art. 11).'^' The War Articles, departing fromthe treatise writers and fromother statutes, give various rather specific examples of the indicia leading to the oathtaking stage. The examples and a comparison with the Carolina demonstrate clearly that the authors of the Articles were well acquainted with the ius commune doctrine. The examples read as follows (art. 13): - the accused has fled; - the accused has been seen in company of other guilty persons; - the accused has previously committed similar crimes; - the accused has had a fight with the victim{“undsagt”)', - the accused is caught lying in court {“tvetalan”)', - the accused has extrajudicially confessed to the deed (“... bekändt eller skryt på andre rum, förr eller sedan han kom för Rätten, om något som kan vvara händt ...”); or - there is one eyewitness to the deed. The War and the Sea Articles of 1683 and 1685, respectively, brought the institution of poena extraordinaria to the statutory level. Article 19 of the Rules Concerning Legal Procedure, Inquisition and Sentencing of the War Articles reads The Royal Letter of December 22, 1686, to the High Court of Tartu goes to show that the influence of the War Articles ranged wider than the military circles alone. The Court asks the king how it ought to proceed when the accused, by “indicier och presumtioner," seems guilty, but yet there is no full proof. Should the accused be tortured {ppinas och torqueras") to extract confession, or would be it better to followthe War Articles rules on procedure? The king reasons that it is best not to torture, for confessions extracted under torture are unreliable. It is better to act according to the War Articles, (“följa thet allmänne bruk uti Wårt Rike och innehållet af Krigs-Articlerne”) and employ absolutio ab instantia {“Gudz dom”). Schmedeman 1706 pp. 1087-1088. Nehrman 1759 p. 5; Munktell 1940 p. 145. In a Royal Letter of August 17, 1686, the king reminded a high court that the War Articles must be applied to the military personnel appearing before general courts; Schmedeman 1706 p. 996. The oath-helpers’ oath concerned whether the accused’s oath was “clean and not talse” {“reen och icke meen”, art. 16). Schmedeman 1706 p. 836. Identical to this article is art. 19 of the Rules Concerning Legal Procedure, Inquisition and Sentencing of the Sea Articles of 1686, ibid. p. 962. 130
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=