Numbers, letter e) specifies that the SC can assess only the judge's report plus only the specific pieces of trial documentation mentioned in the reason for appeal and attached to the file.
Thus, they do not assess the evidence.
They don't have the evidence.
They only have small, specific bits of trial documentation at best.
Assessing evidence is a different concept in procedure. Implies the judge's right of calling witnesses, interrogate them, order tests, hear cross questionings and confrontation, and access the whole file, including all trial files and non-written material deposited with the court.
An assessment about whether piece of evidence could be decisive does not go though anything of that kind. Would be based on summary presentation of one party and counter argument. They won't see almost anything about the trial file. Assessment of evidence is a concept out of reach for SC.
Thanks again for a post that is an example of manifest illogic. As in my earlier post where I discussed in some detail CPP Art. 606.1 (d), I will here show the full text (in English translation) of CPP Art. 606.1 (e) and provide an explanation of what it means, to help any interested readers.
1. The appeal to the Court of Cassation may be lodged if it is based on the following arguments:
....
(e) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appeal decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the Court of Cassation.
_____
Some explanation:
1. The grounds of the judgment means the interpretation of the evidence, which must include the evidence itself, insofar as the appeal has specified. There is certainly no general review of the grounds (the interpretation of evidence and the evidence) unless that is what the appeal requests; only those parts of the grounds appealed in the accused's and/or the prosecution's arguments for appeal are reviewed by the CSC.
2. The grounds of judgment itself must be that contained in the motivation report or any similar document(s) produced by the lower court and the CSC review is limited as stated in 1.
3. The evidence that can be reviewed as contributing to the grounds of judgment (limited as stated in 2) is limited to that which is discussed or included in the trial documentation, such as the testimony of witnesses and technical reports or any other relevant document of the proceedings; obviously, the CSC panel would not be able to observe the facial expressions or tones of voice of the witnesses (unless there were recordings). It is important to understand that testimony is evidence, just as are documents such as, for example, reports of forensic tests, photographs, and charts or graphs.
4. The CSC assess or reviews the relevant (as stated in 1) grounds and associated evidence based upon the documents and records of the lower court documentation. No one has claimed that the CSC conducts a de novo trial by, for example, calling witnesses or ordering tests; the CSC acts as an appeal court, evaluating (= assessing, = reviewing) the contents of the documents and records of the lower court that are relevant to the arguments raised in the appeals of the accused and/or prosecution.
5. One should also recall that the CSC considers other appeal arguments, such as those falling under CPP Art. 606.1 (b) and (c), that is, (b) failure of the lower court to comply with or misapplication of criminal law or other legal rules, and (c) failure of the lower court to comply with procedural rules established under penalty of nullity, exclusion of evidence, inadmissibility or expiry.
6. One should also note that, according to CPP Art. 609.2, "the Court of Cassation shall also decide on issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings and on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage".
