The Burden of Criminal Procedural Proof
Abstract
The urgency of the article stated in the article is due to the need to revise traditional scientific views on certain peculiarities of criminal procedural evidence in connection with the expansion of the adversarial nature of domestic criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to determine the essence of the category ‘burden of proof’ and justify the necessity of introducing it into scientific and law enforcement circulation. The main approach to the study of this problem was to carry out a critical analysis of the norms of the current criminal procedural legislation that regulates the requirements regarding the burden of proof and the views expressed on their proper understanding and application. The publication expresses the view that the distinction between such legal categories as ‘burden of proof’ and ‘burden of proof’ is proposed, the definition of the concept of ‘burden of proof’ is proposed and the rules for burden sharing between parties of criminal proceedings are analyzed. The material of the article represents both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further research into the essence of the concept of ‘burden of proof’, as well as for proper understanding and enforcement of criminal procedural law enforcement activities.
References
[2] Best, W.M. 1875. The principles of the law of evidence: with elementary rules for conducting the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Wentworth Press.
[3] Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 1-p/2019 of February 26, 2019 http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019.pdf.
[4] ECHR judgment in the case of Fam Hoang v. France of September 25, 1992. http://www.hrights.ru/text/inter/b2/Chapter8.htm.
[5] Foinitsky, I.Ya. 1996. The course of criminal proceedings: in 2 volumes. Vol. 2. Alfa.
[6] Glovuk, I.V. 2013. Presumption and the burden of proof in the consideration by the investigating judge of petitions on the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings. Legal Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs 2: 84-89.
[7] Kalinovsky, K.B. 2010. Distribution of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings: is it always in favor of the accused? International scientific conference ‘Criminal justice: the link of times’, October 6-8, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
[8] Loboyko, L.M., Banchuk, O.A. 2014. Criminal proceedings. Vaite.
[9] Lukashkina, T.V. 2017. Participation of the defense in proving a pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine. Comparative-Analytic Right, 2: 189-195.
[10] Polyansky, N.N. 1960. Essay on the development of science of the Soviet criminal process. Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
[11] Separate opinion of judge I.D. Slidenko in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_8.pdf.
[12] Separate opinion of judge O.O. Pervomaisky in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_4.pdf.
[13] Separate opinion of judge V.P. Kolesnik in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_2.pdf.
[14] Separate opinion of judge V.V. Gorodovenko in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_6.pdf.
[15] Separate opinion of judge V.V. Lemak in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_5.pdf.
[16] Separate opinion of the judge S.V. Shevchuk in relation to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019. http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_7.pdf.
[17] The dissident opinion of the judge Sergey Holovaty in the case No. 1-135/2018 (Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-p/2019 (updated and supplemented on 11.03.2019)). http://www.ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_p_2019_3.pdf.
[18] Vapniarychuk, 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.
[19] Vapniarychuk, V.V. 2018. Theoretical basis of criminal procedural proof. Doctoral diss., Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University.
[20] Vladimirov, L.E. 1910. The doctrine of criminal evidence. Parts of the general and special. Publishing house of book shop ‘Zakonovediniye’.
[21] Zhogin, N.V. 1973. Theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal process. Legal Literature.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.