The Evidentiary Value of Evidence Derived from Invalid Procedures

Abstract

This research examines the probative value of criminal evidence obtained through invalid or unlawful procedures, as one of the most significant issues facing criminal justice systems in balancing society’s interest in combating crime with the protection of individual rights and freedoms. The study is based on the principle that the legality of evidence constitutes a fundamental limitation on the discretionary power of the criminal judge in forming judicial conviction; evidence derived from unlawful procedures may not be relied upon, even if it is truthful in substance.

The research adopts an analytical and comparative methodology by analyzing the concept of procedural nullity and its types, reviewing the main legislative doctrines governing nullity, and examining doctrinal and legislative positions in Arab and foreign legal systems regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, whether as evidence of guilt or innocence.

The study concludes that legal systems differ in their approach to excluding evidence obtained through invalid procedures: Latin systems tend to adopt a stricter stance to safeguard rights and freedoms, whereas Anglo-Saxon systems demonstrate greater flexibility. The research also emphasizes that procedural integrity is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial, and any violation thereof directly affects the legality and probative value of evidence