Today in Croatian law, there are ex lege evidentiary prohibitions prescribed by law, which developed from absolute exclusivity of Anglo-Saxon law, and ex iudicio evidentiary prohibitions at the will of the court, which developed from the theory of balancing of German law and the principle of proportionality. Balancing the conflicting interests and strengthening fundamental rights have marked the development of an institute of illegal evidence in the world. In the Yugoslav legislation, illegal evidence was first prescribed in 1985. The system of illegal evidence in Croatian law has developed into a complex and demanding way, in comparison with other European countries. The valid Law of Criminal Procedure (ZKP/08) prescribes as illegal evidence obtained in violation of the prohibition of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. Furthermore, illegal evidence is evidence obtained in breach of the defendant's guaranteed rights, except in duly justified exceptions where such evidence is not considered illegal. The central group of illegal evidence consists of evidence expressly prescribed by the provisions of the ZKP/08, the results of evidentiary actions of searches, interrogations of defendants and witnesses, expert reports and special evidentiary actions. In judicial practice, in the appeal requests sent to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (VSRH) and ECtHR, the appellants object to treatment in criminal proceedings due to the same illegal evidence. However, the ECtHR does not check the illegality of the evidence according to the domestic legislation, but only checks the violations of the articles of the Convention. In requests based on appellate grounds of illegal evidence, the ECtHR verifies violations of the prohibition of torture from Art. 3., violations of fair procedure from Art. 6. and violations of the right to respect for private and family life from Art. 8. Violations of the rights of the Convention in criminal proceedings may be the result of illegal methods of obtaining evidence, but they are, however, independent of the regulations of domestic legislation on the illegality of evidence.