The Burden of Criminal Procedural Proof

  • Viacheslav V. VAPNIARCHUK Department of Criminal Procedure, Institute of Prosecution and Criminal Justice, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Oksana V. KAPLINA Department of Criminal Procedure, Institute of Prosecution and Criminal Justice Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Ivan A. TITKO Department of Criminal Law and Criminal Law Disciplines, Poltava Law Institute Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Poltava, Ukraine
  • Volodymyr I. MARYNIV Department of Criminal Procedure, Institute for Training Personnel for the Justice Bodies of Ukraine Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Oksana V. LAZUKOVA Department of Criminal Procedure, Institute of Prosecution and Criminal Justice Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine

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

[1] Baulin, O.V. 2004. The burden of proof in civil proceedings. Gorodets.
[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.
Published
2019-03-31
How to Cite
VAPNIARCHUK, Viacheslav V. et al. The Burden of Criminal Procedural Proof. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 386-394, mar. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/4370>. Date accessed: 26 may 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v10.1(39).40.