Review

On the basis of scientific analysis of current legislation and the literature revealed shortcomings official definition of evidence and proof in criminal proceedings.

In particular, states that although the presence of different types of proceedings led to his own definition of evidence, but in each of them are recognized as «evidence», the contents of which have certain list, information. The analysis of attributive and functional approach to the definition of «information» is justified that the information does not exist by itself, but its appearance is only possible as a result of interaction between subject and object of knowledge, because knowledge of the subject which receives the actual data.

However, as knowledge in criminal proceedings is in the form of evidence in the course of which operate not just the actual data (information), and the evidence is therefore the concept of «establishment of evidence» and «procedural proof» and «sources of evidence» and «procedural sources of evidence» should not be confused, as if the sources of evidence can be any object, the source of evidence procedure stipulated by law.

And drawn attention to the fact that the definition of evidence formulated in Part .1, Art. 84 CPC and whereby they have «evidence obtained in the present Code on the grounds of which the investigator, the prosecutor, the investigating judge and the court determines whether or not the facts and circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings and to be proved» is debatable, because, first, the proof is not just the establishment of evidence, and the establishment of data, their procedure for establishing and operating them in order to justify the circumstances that are the subject of proof, and, secondly, its literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that the defense and the victim are not the subjects of evidence that contradicts this general principles of criminal proceedings as «competition and freedom to petition their court their evidence and to prove in court their credibility».

Based on evidence clarifying the nature, purpose and content of proof, and systematic analysis of the norms of the CPC and expressed views on this matter scientists made proposals to improve their definitions.

References

1. 1. Кримінальний процесуальний кодекс України від 13 квіт. 2012 р. № 4651–VІ / [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651–17.
2. Философский энциклопедический словарь / Ред. сост. Е. Губский, Г. Кораблева, В. Лутченко. – М.: ИНФРА-М, 1999. – 576 с.
3. Конверський А. Є. Логіка / А. Є. Конверський. – К.: Укр. Центр духовної культури, 1999. – 400 с.
4. Словарь синонимов русского языка. – Л.: Наука, 1971. – 856 с.
5. Михеенко М. М. Доказывание в советском уголовном судопроизводстве / М. М. Михеенко. – К.: Вища шк., 1984. – 133 с.
6. Большой юридический словарь / Под ред. А. Сухарева, В. Зорькина, В. Крутских. – М.: ИНФРА-М, 1998. – 790 с.
7. Котюк І. І. Теорія судового пізнання: монографія / І. І. Котюк. – К.: ВПЦ Київський університет», 2006. – 435 с.
8. Гончаренко В. И. Использование данных естественных и технических наук в уголовном судопроизводстве (методологические вопросы) / В. И. Гончаренко. – К.: Вища школа, 1980. – 160 с.
9. Котюк І. І. Основи теорії судового пізнання. Ч. 1. Загальнотеоретичні аспекти: навч. посіб. для студ. юрид. ф-тів / І. І. Котюк. – К.: ВПЦ «Київський університет», 2012. – 423 с.
10. Орлов Ю. К. Структура судебного доказывания и понятие судебного доказательства / Ю. К. Орлов // Вопросы борьбы с преступностью. – М: Юрид. лит., 1978. – Вып. 28. – С. 86–101.
11. Кримінальний процесуальний кодекс України. Науково-практичний коментар / За заг. ред. В. Г. Гончаренка, В. Т. Нора, М. Є. Шумила. – К.: Юстініан, 2012. – 1223 c.