Standards of Criminal Procedure Evidence

  • Viacheslav V. VAPNIARCHUK Department of Criminal Process, Institute of Prosecution and Criminal Justice, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Volodymyr M. TROFYMENKO Department of Criminal Process, Personnel Training Institute for the Bodies of Justice of Ukraine, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Olha G. SHYLO Department of Criminal Process, Faculty of Finance and Law, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Volodymyr I. MARYNIV Department of Criminal Process, Personnel Training Institute for the Bodies of Justice of Ukraine, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine

Abstract

The strategy of integration development of Ukraine envisages, in particular, the implementation of international standards of justice in the legal system of Ukraine. The article explores the essence of such a legal category as ‘the standard of criminal procedural proof’. The rules of evidence in the Anglo-Saxon and continental legal systems in the context of this issue are analyzed, as well as domestic criminal procedural legislation on the peculiarities of assessment of evidence in various criminal proceedings and at various stages. Conclusions are made on the existence of objective evidence of standards in the Anglo-Saxon family of law (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘probability balance’) and the subjective standard of proof in the countries of the continental system of law (‘on the basis of internal conviction’). The opinion on the lawfulness and expediency of the allocation of certain objective standards of proof and in domestic criminal proceedings is expressed.

References

[1] Babanly, R.Sh., Sirotkina, M.V. 2013. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal process of Ukraine: peculiarities of understanding and enforcement. Lawyer 10: 19-21.
[2] Beznosyuk, A.M. 2014. Proving beyond reasonable doubt and credibility as standards of evidence in the criminal process of Ukraine. Court Appeal 3: 23-28.
[3] Clermont, K.M., Sherwin, E.A. 2002. Comparative view of standards of proof. American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 243.
[4] De Salvia, M. 2004. Advocates of the European Court of Human Rights. Guiding principles of the jurisprudence relating to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Judicial practice from 1960 to 2002. Yuridiceskiy Tsentr Press.
[5] Decree of Dniprovsky District Court of Kyiv dated 02/03/2015: case law № 755/15796/14-k (№ according to the USSR: 42673514), http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/42673514 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[6] Engel, C. 2009. Preponderance of the evidence versus intime conviction: A behavioral perspective on a conflict between American and continental European law. Vermont Law Review 33: 464.
[7] Erdal, Yu., Bakirchi, H. 2006. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. World Organization Against Torture 69: 432.
[8] European Court of Human Rights. 1978. Case ‘Ireland v. The United Kingdom’, http://europeancourt.ru/resheniya-evropejskogo-suda-na-russkom-yazyke/irlandiya-protiv-soedinennogo-korolevstva-postanovlenie-evropejskogo-suda/ (accessed April 2, 2019).
[9] European Court of Human Rights. 2000a. Case ‘Labita v. Italy’, http://www.srji.org/resources/search/3/ (accessed April 2, 2019).
[10] European Court of Human Rights. 2000b. Case ‘Sevtap Veznedaroglu v Turkey’, http://www.srji.org/resources/search/2/ (accessed April 2, 2019).
[11] European Court of Human Rights. 2000c. Case ‘Messina v. Italy’, http://eurocourt.in.ua/Article.asp?AIdx=315 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[12] European Court of Human Rights. 2007. Case ‘Bendersky v. Ukraine’, http://www.minjust.gov.ua (accessed April 2, 2019).
[13] European Court of Human Rights. 2011. Case ‘Korobov v. Ukraine’, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_790 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[14] European Court of Human Rights. 2013. Case ‘Tymoshenko v. Ukraine’, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_924 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[15] Grosheviy, Yu.M., and Shylo, O.G. 2013. Problematic Issues of the CPC of Ukraine in Selecting Precautionary Measures. The Law of Ukraine 11(219): 216-25.
[16] Ishchenko, V.M. 2009. Prospects for the Formation of Standards of Evidence in the Modern Criminal Process in Ukraine. Law Forum 3: 302-7, http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?I21DBN=LINK&P21DBN=UJRN&Z21ID=&S21REF=10&S21CNR=20&S21STN=1&S21FMT=ASP_meta&C21COM=S&2_S21P03=FILA=&2_S21STR=FP_index.htm_2009_3_44 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[17] Kaplina, O.V., Shylo, O.G., Trofymenko, V.M. 2018. The criminal process of Ukraine. Pravo.
[18] Kostruba, A.V. 2018. The place and role of right depriving legal facts in the legal regulation mechanism of civil property relations. Utopia y Praxis Latinoamericana 23(82): 171-183.
[19] Litvin, O.V. 2016. Criminal evidence in the trial stage. Odessa Law Academy.
[20] McBride, D. 2010. European Convention on Human Rights and Criminal Procedure. K.I.C.
[21] Pavlyshyn, A.A., Slyusarchuk, H.R. 2018. Standards of proof in criminal proceedings. Kolyr PRO.
[22] President of Ukraine. 2015. Strategy for Reforming the Judiciary, Justice and Related Legal Institutes for 2015-2020, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/276/2015 (accessed April 2, 2019).
[23] Ratushna, B.P. 2014. Proper evidence in Ukraine's legal enforcement in the light of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (General theoretical study). LNU named after I.Franko.
[24] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_588/page (accessed April 2, 2019).
[25] Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Rules_procedure_evidence/IT032Rev49_en.pdf (accessed April 2, 2019).
[26] Shumylo, M. 2014. Probability and probability of knowledge in criminal proceedings as a prerequisite for the objectification of the results of proof. The Law of Ukraine 10: 44-52.
[27] Shylo, O.G. 2014. Features of the justification for choosing preventive measures in criminal proceedings. Scientific Herald of Uzhgorod National University. Series Law 25: 269-273.
[28] Stepanenko, A.S. 2014. Problems of determining the standard of proof ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’. Legal Electronic Scientific Journal 6: 225-227, http://www.lsej.org.ua/6_2014/62.pdf (accessed April 2, 2019).
[29] Valtos, S. 1995. Criminal Process: Essay System. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze PWN.
[30] Vapnyarchuk, V.V. 2013. The essence of the beginning of pre-trial investigation under the new CPC of Ukraine. Actual Problems of Law: Theory and Practice 26: 177-186.
[31] Vapnyarchuk, V.V. 2014. The essence of the category of ‘Burden of proof’ in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 2(77): 145-155.
[32] Vapnyarchuk, V.V. 2018. Theoretical basis of criminal procedural proof. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University.
[33] Whitman, J.Q. 2008. The origins of reasonable doubt: Theological roots of the criminal trial. Yale University Press.
[34] Zavtur, V.A. 2016. The Ratio between the Concepts of ‘Standard’ and ‘Margin’ of Evidence in the Context of the Application of Measures to Ensure Criminal Proceedings. Information and Scientific and Methodological Support of Pre-Trial Investigation and Judicial Proceedings: Mater. of ‘Round Table’ (April 21, 2016),
[35] https://new.vk.com/doc44363640_437506583?hash=4cd861217323d8a2af&dl=a8b73de11179f4c56c (accessed April 2, 2019).
Published
2019-11-24
How to Cite
VAPNIARCHUK, Viacheslav V. et al. Standards of Criminal Procedure Evidence. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 7, p. 2462-2470, nov. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/4084>. Date accessed: 25 feb. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9.7(37).34.