Review

The article describes the evolution of basic views on the concept of domestic scholars evidence in criminal proceedings. Author formulates assumptions to understand the evidence in criminal proceedings.

It is noted that the legislative definition (decision) Procedure proof of concept (p. 1, art. 84 of the current СРС). Standardized proof of concept in the СРС can function as a recognized scale (standard) understanding of communication in the course of criminal proceedings participants. What is imperfect, so is useful in the sense that it is a regulatory “gate” through which you can log in to the concept of evidence, which, unfortunately, has not worked properly on a theoretical level. So lawyers for the qualified legal work with the evidence necessary to have special procedural means (tools) – a legal construction of “the evidence”.

The attention that procedural stage formation of criminal forensic evidence begins in pre-trial investigation, where it is carried out within the inherent inquisitorial procedures as a result of implementing the principles favor procuratori. According ch. 1, Art. 84 CPC Indictment power (the investigator and prosecutor) authorized to admit it made the same material (evidence) prima facie evidence by inquisition infestation. So they are quite suitable, so to speak, for “internal use only” in the interest of the preliminary investigation. “True”, ie criminal judicial evidence, these materials are only the prosecution in the trial stage. This is the domain of the judiciary, which under organically inherent adversarial procedure, carried out the study material pre-trial investigation. The results of this verification only the court has the exclusive right to declare formed within a triangle procedural “trial – the prosecution – the defense” material composition evidence also use it in conjunction with other evidence to justify the sentence.

Keywords: procedural evidence, proving process, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.