Direct proof means that we arrive at new facts by proving certain facts. There are two forms of this process, induction and deduction. We speak of inductive proof when we arrive at general conclusions from individual facts (e.g. businesslike conduct as a qualifying circumstance is established on the basis of the succession of individual acts). In deductive proof, the starting point is the general proposition, but the conclusion is necessarily specific. If, for example, the danger to society of an act is debatable, it is by analysing (proving or disproving) this general concept that the danger of the specific act can be established or disputed.1

Indirect evidence is the refutation of facts that are contrary to the fact to be proved. The theories are: 1. Under the “chain rule”, each piece of indirect evidence must connect the fact to be proved with a closed chain of interconnected stitches, and the loss of a single link precludes the success of indirect proof.2 2. Under the “rope theory”, the facts to be proved could strengthen each other the same way a rope combines the strength of the several parallel threads forming it. “The elements of a twine of cords are individually incapable of supporting the weight attached to them, but when twisted into a strong rope the strength of the rope is multiplied – the individual strands may also be held together by common threads, and the loss or breakage of one or two strands does not mean that the rope cannot perform its function.”3 Bócz, however, argues that the fact that some elements of the rope are sometimes intertwined with other strands should not be a reason for rejecting this theory.4 3. The emphasis of the ‘net model’ is not on the relationship between the individual pieces of evidence, but on the relationship between the evidence and the facts to be proved. In this case, the indirect evidence is therefore linked to the facts to be proved and is capable of fulfilling its evidential function by virtue of its close or loose relationship with those facts.5

In addition, there are a number of methodological options which are regularly used by the practitioner in the assessment of a case:

The application of these methods depends on the complexity of the facts, and their use is therefore naturally alternative. However, it is a basic requirement, especially for the court’s decisions on the substance of the case, that they must satisfy the requirements of logical truth and logical noncontradiction.

The item to be proved must be clearly and unambiguously stated.

This item should not be changed during the proof.

The arguments must be true, proven and sufficient to prove the point.

The arguments must follow from the proposition according to the logical rules of proof. 7