Review

The article is devoted to the research of standards of proof, especially beyond reasonable doubt.

In contrast to Criminal procedural code of Ukraine 1960, the Criminal procedural code of Ukraine 2012 in the Article 17 enshrined the presumption of innocence and obligation to prove guilty of a person thereby it has duplicated the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and has extended it a little bit by adding phrase that prosecution must prove the guilty of a person beyond a reasonable doubt. The legislator added the provision that the prosecutor must prove guilty of a person beyond reasonable in the Article 17 of Criminal procedure code of Ukraine but legislator didn't defined «reasonable doubt» - which doubt we have to call reasonable and which not. Yet the presence or absence of reasonable doubt is key part in decision making process of judges and jury in trial. In this connexion, the research of standard of proof «beyond reasonable doubt» is very actual and promising for the criminal procedure of Ukraine.

The author has conducted the analysis of scientific literature and legislation of Great Britain, USA and on decisions of The European Court of Human Rights as well. The key decisions of ECtHR, in which consist its interpretations and practice of using the standard of proof. The author revealed particular issues of defining standard of proof «beyond reasonable doubt» and emphasized guidelines of its application in concerned cases and in criminal procedure of Ukraine as well.

It is noted that the use of the Court standard of proof «beyond reasonable doubt»  it leaves space for free (subjective) interpretation. Court not defined the criteria for proof, but the Court illustrates an example of specific cases that evidence is sufficient, but that is insufficient. Therefore, in the absence of proper practice of Ukrainian courts standard of proof «beyond reasonable doubt», should pay attention to what the Court under reasonable doubt understand the question, you can verify your court evidence, and which must be based on circumstances that may stem from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and mutually supporting similar conclusions or irrefutable presumptions of fact.

Keywords: ECtHR, fact-finding, burden of proof, standards of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.