Judicial Nature of Evidence in Criminal Proceeding

  • Valery P. GMYRKO Department of Law Enforcement and Criminal Law Disciplines, Educational and Scientific Institute of Law and International Legal Relations University of Customs and Finance, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Mykola Ye. SHUMYLO Department of Justice, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Viacheslav V. VAPNIARCHUK Department of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Justice and Prosecutors’ Training Institute, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Oksana V. KAPLINA Department of Criminal Procedure, Personnel Training Institute for the Bodies of Justice of Ukraine, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Vasily P. SHYBIKO Department of Justice, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine


The urgency of the problem stated in the article is conditioned by the necessity to determine the legal nature of the evidence in criminal proceedings and the evolution of the views of domestic scientists on this legal phenomenon. The purpose of the article is to consider the legal nature of the evidence in criminal proceedings and to determine their legal structure. The main approach to the study of this problem was to conduct a methodological analysis of the phenomena of ‘concept’ and ‘definition’, on the basis of which it was argued that judicial evidence has no essence, and only the function of being a symbolic representative of a certain factum probans (from Latin – something that should be proved). The publication concludes that the evidence in criminal proceedings is the result of human thinking operations and can be represented by the methodological construction ‘composition of criminal-judicial evidence’, which includes regulatory-procedural, knowledge, fact-finding and judicial-interpretation segments. In addition, the opinion expressed the inappropriateness of fixing evidence in the criminal procedural law and proposed a pragmatic approach to this issue, which is in line with current European jurisprudence. The materials of the article represent both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific investigation of evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as for a proper understanding and enforcement of law enforcement criminal proceedings.



[1] Albania’s Criminal Procedure Code. 1995. http://pbosnia.kentlaw.edu/resources/legal/albania/crim_pro.htm.
[2] Balakshin, V.S. 2005. Evidence in the theory and practice of criminal procedure evidence. The most important problems in the light of the code of criminal procedure of the Russian Federation. Ural State Law Academy.
[3] Berezkin, Yu.M. 2010a. Metafinance: statement of the problem. http://berezkin.info/?page_id=2.
[4] Berezkin, Yu.M. 2010b. Seven touches on methodology. Publishing House of BSUEP.
[5] Berezkin, Yu.M. 2012. Foundations of the activity methodology. Publishing House of BSUEP.
[6] Bocharov, D. 2014. The doctrine of the sign as a methodological basis of the theory of evidence. Law of Ukraine 4:166-172.
[7] Bulgaria’s Criminal Procedure Code. 2005. https://www.twirpx.com/file/1097891/.
[8] Cassirer, E. 2006. Cognition and reality. The concept of substance and the concept of function. Gnosis.
[9] Criminal Procedure Code of the Czech Republic. 1961. https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6371/file/Czech%20Republic_CPC_1961_am2012_en.pdf.
[10] Dorokhov, V.Ya. 1973. The concept of evidence. Theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal process. Legal Literature.
[11] Dvoretskiy, I.K. 1976. Latin-Russian dictionary. Russian Language.
[12] Gmyrko, V. 2003. Legal definition of the ‘general’ concept of evidence: whether to store in the new PDA. Law of Ukraine 11: 101-106.
[13] Gmyrko, V. 2014. Criminal evidence: legal concept or definition. Law of Ukraine 10: 26-35.
[14] Gmyrko, V.P. 2002. Criminal procedural evidence: concept, structure, characteristics, classification. Summary of a problem lecture. Academy of Customs Service of Ukraine.
[15] Grinchenko, B. (Ed.). 1996. Dictionary of the Ukrainian language. Scientific Opinion.
[16] Karavansky, S. 2012. Practical dictionary of synonyms of the Ukrainian language. Bak.
[17] Mikheenko, M.M. 1984. Proving in the Soviet criminal trial. Vyshcha Shkola.
[18] Moldova’s Criminal Procedure Code. 2003. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5509a3794.pdf.
[19] Orlov, Yu.K. 2009. Problems of evidence theory in criminal proceedings. Lawyer.
[20] Pogoretsky, M.A. 2015. A new concept of criminal procedural evidence. Bulletin of Criminal Proceedings 3: 63 79.
[21] Popov, S.V. 1989. On the construction of concepts. http://berezkin.info/?page_id=146.
[22] Ratz, M.M. 2010. Politics and management. http://www.park.futurerussia.ru/extranet/about/life/2061/.
[23] Shchedrovitsky, G.P. 1984. Lectures in Soyuzmor NII proekt: lectures 6-8. http://berezkin.info/?page_id=171.
[24] Shumylo, M.E. 2015. The concept of evidence in criminal proceedings: prolegomena to understanding the ‘elusive’ phenomenon of evidential law. Bulletin of Criminal Justice 3: 95-104.
[25] Shumylo, M.E. 2018. Legal construction of evidence in criminal proceedings. Bulletin of Criminal Justice 1: 59 67.
[26] The great interpretive dictionary of modern Ukrainian. 2001. http://lingvodics.com/dics/details/1100/.
[27] Vapniarchuk, V.V. 2015. Concerning the notion of evidence in criminal proceedings. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhgorod National University 32(3): 114-117.
[28] Vapniarchuk, V.V. 2018. Theoretical basis of criminal procedural evidence. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University.
[29] Zadorozhny, V.D. 2012. ‘Concepts’: the correspondent or failed tracing paper? Our energy efficient home. http://efes-jkg.ucoz.ua/blog/.
How to Cite
GMYRKO, Valery P. et al. Judicial Nature of Evidence in Criminal Proceeding. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 7, p. 1976 – 1983, dec. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/4964>. Date accessed: 03 oct. 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v10.7(45).04.