Summary

Mankind has not found a better solution to civilised resolving of conflicts than to turn to an independent third party or a court and judicial redress. What can be done in court in principle to resolve such conflicts, what is actually routinely done on a day-to-day basis and what is the relation to the “original truth”? – this is the fundamental issue of this article.

The article is a response to the writing of Uno Lõhmus published in the third issue of Juridica in 2013, whose central thesis was, according to the author of this article, the definition of criminal proceedings as a venue where truth is relentlessly sought on a daily basis and where that which is sought is routinely found. The author of the present paper does not agree with Uno Lõhmus in several respects. The author believes that the identification of truth is not merely a question of our will, choice and decision.

The analysis starts with a brief statistical overview of the relevant case law. Then the object of research is approached positively – by way of seeking truth from the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure – however, from time to time, the author faces up to the truth proceeding from the legal realities and practical work of a judge. Thereafter, the matter is approached from a philosophical aspect.