Criminal Evidence in Russia

Sources of Criminal Evidence Law

Criminal evidence in Russia is governed primarily by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Ugolovno-Protsessualny Kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii, UPK RF), adopted in 2001 and effective from 1 July 2002, replacing the Soviet-era RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. Part Three of the UPK RF (Articles 74–90) contains the general provisions on evidence, proof, and admissibility. Additional evidentiary rules are found in the Federal Law on Operational-Investigative Activities (No. 144-FZ of 12 August 1995), the Federal Law on State Forensic Activity (No. 73-FZ of 31 May 2001), and the Federal Law on the Status of Judges (No. 3132-1 of 26 June 1992) governing judicial evaluation of evidence. Procedural decisions on evidence are subject to the adversarial principle (Article 15 UPK) and the free evaluation of evidence principle (Article 17 UPK), which provides that no evidence has predetermined force and that the court, prosecutor, and investigator evaluate evidence according to their internal conviction based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the case.

Types of Evidence (Article 74 UPK)

Article 74 of the UPK RF exhaustively lists the types of evidence (dokazatelstva) admissible in criminal proceedings: (1) testimony of the suspect (podo zrevaemy); (2) testimony of the accused (obvinyaemy); (3) testimony of the victim (poterpevshy); (4) testimony of a witness (svidetel); (5) expert opinion and testimony (zaklyuchenie eksperta i pokazaniya eksperta); (6) specialist opinion and testimony; (7) physical evidence (veshchestvennye dokazatelstva); (8) records of investigative and judicial actions (protokoly sledstvennykh i sudebnykh deystvy); and (9) other documents (inye dokumenty). The list is exhaustive and evidence falling outside these categories is inadmissible.

The UPK distinguishes between accusatory and exculpatory evidence, and places a duty on the investigator, prosecutor, and court to collect both types. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution; the accused is not required to prove their innocence. Article 14 UPK codifies the presumption of innocence (prezumptsiya nevinovnosti), providing that all doubts that cannot be resolved in accordance with the UPK shall be interpreted in favour of the accused and that a conviction cannot be based on presumptions.

Admissibility Criteria (Dopustimost)

Article 75 UPK defines inadmissible evidence (nedopustimye dokazatelstva) as evidence obtained in violation of the UPK. Evidence is inadmissible where: (1) it was obtained by a person not authorised to conduct the investigative action; (2) it was obtained through methods not prescribed by the UPK; (3) it derives from a source not known to the court or obtained from a witness who could not identify its source; (4) it was obtained in the course of investigative actions that were not sanctioned by the appropriate authority where sanction was required; or (5) it was obtained through violence, threats, deception, or other unlawful methods.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is recognised in Russian criminal procedure to a limited extent. The Plenum of the Supreme Court has held, in Resolution No. 2 of 2013, that evidence derived from inadmissible primary evidence is itself inadmissible if the causal connection between the violation and the derivative evidence is direct. However, Russian courts apply this doctrine more restrictively than its US counterpart, often admitting derivative evidence where the violation is procedural rather than substantive or where the evidence could have been obtained independently.

Covert Operations (Operativno-Razysknye Meropriyatiya)

The Federal Law on Operational-Investigative Activities (operativno-razysknaya deyatelnost, ORD) authorises law enforcement agencies, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, and the Federal Drug Control Service, to conduct covert operations for crime detection and prevention. Article 6 of Law No. 144-FZ lists fourteen types of operational-investigative measures, including: surveillance (nablyudenie); wiretapping of telephone conversations (proslushivanie telefonnykh peregovorov); seizure of postal, telegraph, and other communications; controlled delivery (kontroliruemaya postavka); operational experiment (operativny eksperiment); and undercover operations (operativnoe vnedrenie).

Evidence obtained through ORD measures must be introduced into criminal proceedings through a specific procedure. The results of operational-investigative activities (rezultaty ORD) are not themselves evidence but may form the basis for initiating investigative actions that produce admissible evidence. The Constitutional Court has held, in Ruling No. 18-P of 2014, that ORD results must be transferred to the investigator in accordance with inter-departmental instructions and must be verified through procedural mechanisms before they can be admitted. Where ORD measures violate constitutional rights, the resulting evidence is inadmissible.

Search and Seizure

Searches (obyski) and seizures (vymki) are regulated by Articles 182–184 UPK. A search of a dwelling requires a judicial decision obtained by the investigator with the consent of the prosecutor. Exceptions apply where delay may lead to the destruction of evidence or escape of the suspect. The investigator must present the judicial decision before commencing the search and must draw up a protocol recording the sequence of actions, the items seized, and any complaints from participants. Seizure of documents containing state secrets, lawyer-client privileged communications, bank secrecy, and medical confidentiality requires specific judicial authorisation.

Article 183 UPK provides that seizure of electronic documents and computer data must be conducted with the participation of a specialist and must ensure data integrity through copying and hashing. The Constitutional Court has held that the seizure of entire computer servers is disproportionate where targeted copying of relevant data is possible (Ruling No. 29-P of 2016).

Confession and Self-Incrimination

The right against self-incrimination is protected under Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provides that no one is obliged to testify against themselves, their spouse, or close relatives. The UPK elaborates this right in Article 46 (suspect’s rights) and Article 47 (accused’s rights), including the right to remain silent, the right to refuse to testify, and the right to testify in one’s own defence.

A confession alone is insufficient for conviction. Article 77 UPK provides that a guilty plea by the accused may serve as the basis for conviction only if it is confirmed by other evidence in the case. The Plenum of the Supreme Court has consistently held that confessions obtained through violence, threats, or other unlawful methods are inadmissible and that the burden of proving that a confession was voluntary rests on the prosecution. Where an accused alleges that a confession was coerced, the court must conduct an inquiry, including the examination of medical records and video recordings of interrogations.

Forensic Examination

Forensic examination (sudebnaya ekspertiza) is a central feature of Russian criminal evidence, regulated by the UPK (Articles 195–207) and the Federal Law on State Forensic Activity. The investigator may order a forensic examination where specialist knowledge is required to establish facts relevant to the case. The accused has the right to propose questions to the expert, challenge the expert, and request the appointment of an expert from a specific institution. Expert opinions must contain a detailed description of the examinations conducted, the methods used, and reasoned conclusions. The court may order a repeat or supplementary examination where the initial opinion is insufficiently reasoned, contradictory, or based on incorrect data.

State forensic institutions, including the Russian Federal Centre for Forensic Science under the Ministry of Justice and the Forensic Expert Centres of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, conduct most forensic examinations. Private experts may be engaged where state institutions lack the relevant specialisation. The expert’s criminal liability for knowingly false opinions under Article 307 of the Criminal Code (UK RF) serves as a safeguard for reliability.