In general, ‘law of evidence’ is referred to as a collection of rules governing the facts that may be proved in court, the materials that may be placed before the court to prove those facts and the form in which those materials should be placed before the court. The field of enquiry is related to evidence rather than the law of evidence and includes an interesting combination of logic, epistemology, sociology, psychology and the forensic sciences. The field of enquiry is concerned with the use of evidence as material in the reconstruction of past events. From the scientific point of view, ‘evidence’ has been defined as “any material which would aid the court in establishing the probability of past events into which it must inquire”. The general rule of evidence is that a party must produce the best evidence that the nature of the case would allow. Subsequently, this rule has become inadequate and presently it remains underlying in the rule that ‘where a document is adduced as substantive of its content, the original document (as opposed to a copy or other ‘\secondary evidence of its contents) is required’. The theory of best evidence was replaced by the concept of ‘relevance’. Despite several criticisms the concept of relevance remained the basis of the system of judicial reasoning. In England preference is given to the concept of ‘relevance’ which is a strictly logical analysis of probative value of evidence and the concept of admissibility which refers to a policy decision as to what relevant evidence may be admitted. Recently, certain cases in which decisions have been given in consideration of the European Convention on Human Rights have begun to make their mark on the law of evidence in the United Kingdom. The Human Rights Act, 1998 has incorporated the Convention into the English Law. Consequently, it a court is required to take into account, the provisions of the convention and any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights which may affect the issue with which the court is concerned.
