EVOLUTION OF THE ORDER OF STORAGE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE

The relevance of the study of the problems of storage of material evidence is predetermined by the Russian legislator, who in the current criminal procedure law has increased the number of regulatory norms devoted to the procedure for storing the said evidence by tens of times. At the same time, the very multi-branch existence of the institute of material evidence in criminal, civil, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings attracts attention to it. The main goal realized in the article was to test the hypothesis that the normative regulation of the rules for storing material evidence during the periods of validity of various criminal procedure laws could be insufficient, which created problems in assessing the quality of evidence. The methods of conducting the study were formal-legal and chrono-discrete approaches. The conclusions formulated as a result are as follows. The regulatory rules for storing material evidence under the UUS did not form an unbroken chain. The gaps in regulation were filled with circular instructions that were not criminal procedural law. Due to this, the assessment of the quality (property) of material evidence was difficult. In the Soviet criminal procedural law of 1923, the number of norms establishing the rules for storing material evidence (in relation to the UUS) was reduced. The emerging gaps in the regulation of the movement of objects recognized as material evidence were filled with detailed instructions. In this case, the procedural form of storing material evidence was largely absent, making it difficult to assess this evidence. A similar situation was observed in the last Soviet law. The current law has significantly expanded the regulation of the rules for storing material evidence. In the theory of criminal procedure, a differentiation of the procedural order into general and special arose, allowing the development of the rules for storing material evidence as a complete procedural order for storing material evidence.