Review

Abstract. The article is devoted to the relationship between the subject and the limits of evidence in criminal proceedings, establishing their relationship. The correct definition of these concepts in practice contributes to the fulfillment of the tasks of criminal proceedings, in particular, by establishing all the circumstances that are subject to proof in criminal proceedings. The subject of proof and the limits of proof have been creating a debate among scientists and practitioners for a long time due to their uncertainty, as they are of essential importance for the process of proof in criminal proceedings, and accordingly, the relevance of this topic is obvious. The author of the article aims to solve the problem related to the perception of the subject of proof and the limits of proof as equivalent concepts, to establish the relationship between the subject and the limits of proof in criminal proceedings, to propose possible ways of solving other urgent problems related to the topic of the article. The author considered scientific approaches to understanding the subject of proof and the limits of proof, as well as their practical significance. Problematic issues of the relationship between the subject matter and the limits of evidence in criminal proceedings have been identified. Based on the analysis of the literature and the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the essential features of these concepts were determined, which further contributed to their delineation. It is proposed to understand the subject and the limits of proof as interrelated categories, but not equivalent. Key words: proof; subject of proof; criminal proceedings; limits of proof. REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY LEGISLATION

1. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine] Zakon Ukrainy vid 13.04.2012 № 4651-VI data zvernennia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].

AUTHORED BOOKS

1. Mykheenko M M, Dokaziivanye v sovetskom uholovnom sudoproyzvodstve [Evidence in Soviet criminal proceedings] (Kyiv, Vyshcha shkola, 1984) 134 [in Russian].
2. Nor V T, Problemy teorii i praktyky sudovykh dokaziv [Problems of theory and practice of forensic evidence] (Lviv, Vyshcha shkola, 1978) 112 [in Ukrainian].
3. Pohoretskyy̆ M A, Funktsionalne pryznachennia operatyvno-rozshukovoï diialnosti u kryminalnomu protsesi [The functional purpose of investigative activity in the criminal process] (Xarkiv, Arsis LTD, 2007) 576 [in Ukrainian].
4. Teteriatnyk H K, Predmet dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni ta mezhi dokazuvannia [The subject of proof in criminal proceedings and the limits of proof] (Odesa, 2017) 36 [in Ukrainian].
5. Vapniarchuk V V, Teoriia i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [Theory and practice of criminal procedural evidence] (Kharkiv, Yuray̆t, 2017) 408 [in Ukrainian].
6. Hmyrko V, Kryminalno-protsesualni dokazy: poniattia, struktura, kharakterystyky, klasyfikatsiia. Konspekt problemnoi lektsii [Criminal procedural evidence: concept, structure, characteristics, classification. Synopsis of the problem lecture] (Dnipropetrovsk, Akademiia mytnoi sluzhby Ukrainy, 2002) 63 [in Ukrainian].
7. Kovalenko Ye H, Teoriia dokaziv u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy [Theory of evidence in the criminal process of Ukraine] (Kyiv, Yurinkom Inter, 2006) 444 [in Ukrainian].
8. Stakhivskyi S M, Teoriia i praktyka kryminalno-protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [Theory and practice of criminal procedural evidence] (Kyiv, 2005) 272 [in Ukrainian].

ARTICLES

1. Pohoretskyi M A, Obgruntuvannia rishen pro zastosuvannia prymusovykh zakhodiv u kryminalnykh spravakh pro orhanizovanu zlochynnist [Justification of decisions on the application of coercive measures in criminal cases on organized crime] (2007) 15 Borotba z orhanizovanoiu zlochynnistiu i koruptsiieiu (teoriia i praktyka) 3–14 [in Ukrainian].
2. Pohoretskyi M A, Zatrymannia pidozriuvanoho: problemy obgruntuvannia rishennia [Detention of the suspect: problems of justifying the decision] (2007) 6 (20) Yuryd. radnyk 92–97 [in Ukrainian].
3. Pohoretskyi M A, Novyi KPK Ukrainy: politychni, teoretychni ta yurydychni pytannia [New Communist Party of Ukraine: political, theoretical and legal issues] (2009) 2 Pravo Ukrainy 29–35 [in Ukrainian].
4. Pohoretskyi M, Teoriia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia: problemni pytannia [Theory of criminal procedural evidence: problematic issues] (2014) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 12–25 [in Ukrainian].
5. Pohoretskyi M A, Nova kontseptsiia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [New Concept of Criminal Procedural Evidence] (2015) 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 72 [in Ukrainian].
6. Pohoretskyi M A, Mitskan O A, Standart dokazuvannia «obgruntovana pidozra» u praktytsi Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny: vplyv na vitchyznianu pravozastosovnu praktyku [Standard of proof «reasonable suspicion» in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights: impact on domestic law enforcement practice] (2019) 1 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 37–49 [in Ukrainian].
7. Pohoretskyi M A, Mitskan O A, Ctandart dokazuvannia «dostatnia pidstava» u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy [The standard of proof «sufficient basis» in the criminal process of Ukraine] (2019) 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 31–42 [in Ukrainian].
8. Stankovych M I, Rozvytok kryminalnoho protsesualnoho zakonodavstva ta nauky kryminalnoho protsesu pro mezhi dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Development of criminal procedural legislation and the science of criminal procedure on the limits of evidence in criminal proceedings] (2018) 48 (2) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu Seriia Pravo 141–144 [in Ukrainian].

18. Starenkyi O S, Shchodo vyznachennia poniattia mezh dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Regarding the definition of the concept of limits of proof in criminal proceedings] (2014)