Review

The international standards of proof is a guideline in the implementation of normative regulation of the procedural legal relations and ensuring of the unity of judicial practice. In the doctrine of the criminal process to research of the standards of proof, including legal, a lot of attention is devoted, but a unambiguous position on understanding of their concept is not expressed today. The absence of a single conceptual-categorical basis complicates the understanding of international standards of proof and their implementation in the domestic criminal process.

In this regard, the author has set at aims to disclose the concept of «standards of proof» and determine their place in the system of the conceptual-categorical apparatus of the theory of criminal procedural proof.

Taking into account etymological, semantic, epistemological and psychological aspects, the author delimits the content of terms: 1)»standards of proof», which contains in its essence the concept of «proof» and reflects the system of rules, which are normatively entrenched and formed in the judicial practice and ensure the formation by the subject of proof of a totality of relevant, admissible and authentic evidences, sufficient to achieve by the results of their assessment of the level of conviction, necessary for the adoption of the appropriate procedural decision; 2)»standards of proofness» (they are covered by the notion of «standards of proof» in the doctrine of the criminal process in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system), which is based on the concept of «sufficiency of evidences» and reflects the system of rules, which are determined by the norms of the criminal procedural law and established in the judicial practice and allow the subject of proof to form on the basis of the available totality of sufficient evidences the level of conviction, necessary for the adoption of the appropriate procedural decision.

The author concludes, that the concept of «standards of proof» is wider, than the concept of «standards of proofness», and, unlike it, allows to take into account not only the sufficiency of evidences as their systemic attribute, but also the individual attributes of each evidence – relevance, admissibility and authenticity. In this aspect, the concept of «standards of proof» goes beyond the assessment of evidences from the point of view of their sufficiency and allows to take into account also the rules of their collection and verification as well as the rules of assessment of their relevance, admissibility and authenticity, which complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine and formed on its based judicial practice of the Supreme Court.

References

1. 1. Kryminalnyy protsesualnyy kodeks Ukrayiny vid 13.04.2012 r. № 4651-VI [The Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine from April 13, 2012 No. 4651-VI] дата звернення 02.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
2. Sprava Tanli v. Turkey: Rishennya Yevropeyskoho sudu z prav lyudyny vid 10 kvitnya 2001 roku [Case of Tanli v. Turkey: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights from 10 April 2001] accessed 02.12.2018 (in English).
3. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 04.07.2018 r. u spravi № 688/788/15-k (kryminalne provadzhennya
4. № 51–597km17) [Judgment of the Supreme Court from July 4, 2018 in the Case No. 688/788/15-k (Criminal Proceedings No. 51–597km17)] дата звернення 02.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
5. Busel V T, Velykyy tlumachnyy slovnyk suchasnoyi ukrayinskoyi movy (z dodatkamy i dopovnennyamy) [Great Interpretative Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language (with Appendices and Supplements)] (Kyiv, Irpin, VTF «Perun» 2005) 1728 (in Ukrainian).
6. Loboyko L M, Banchuk O A, Kryminalnyy protses [Criminal Process] (Kyiv, Vaite 2014) 280 (in Ukrainian).
7. Morshchakova T G, Standarty spravedlivogo pravosudiya (mezhdunarodnyye i natsionalnyye praktiki) [Standards of Fair Justice (International and National Practices)] (Moskva, Mysl 2012) 584 (in Russian).
8. Vapnyarchuk V V, Teoriya i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannya [Theory and Practice of Criminal Procedural Proof] (Kharkiv, Yurayt 2017) 408 (in Ukrainian).
9. Zelenetskiy V S, Glinskaya N V, Teoriya i praktika obosnovaniya resheniy v ugolovnom protsesse Ukrainy [Theory and Practice of Substantiating Decisions in the Criminal Process of Ukraine] (Kharkiv, Strayd 2006) 336 (in Russian).
10. Mironov V Yu, ’Dostovernost dokazatelstv i ikh znacheniye pri postanovlenii prigovora’ (diss. … kand. yurid. nauk) [Reliability of Evidences and Their Importance in Sentencing] (Orenburg, Orenburgskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet 2005) 222 (in Russian).
11. Slyusarchuk Kh R, ’Standarty dokazuvannya u kryminalnomu provadzhenni’ (avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk) [Standards of Proof in Criminal Proceedings] (Lviv, Lvivskyy natsionalnyy universytet imeni Ivana Franka 2017) 24 (in Ukrainian).
12. 1 М Погорецький, ’Новий КПК України повинен ґрунтуватися як на європейських стандартах, так і на національних традиціях’ (2010) 23 Боротьба з організованою злочинністю і корупцією (теорія і практика) 241.
13. Stepanenko A S, ’Standart dokazuvannya «poza rozumnym sumnivom» u kryminalnomu provadzhenni’ (dys. kand. yuryd. nauk) [The Standard of Proof «Beyond Reasonable Doubt» in Criminal Proceedings] (Odesa, Natsionalnyy universytet «Odeska yurydychna akademiya» 2017) 234 (in Ukranian).
14. Hmyrko V P, ’Standarty dokazanosti: sproba prahmatychnoho pohlyadu’ [Standards of Proof: an Attempt of a Pragmatic Point of View] (2012) 23 Pytannya borotby zi zlochynnistyu 168–179 (in Ukrainian).
15. Ishchenko V M, ’Perspektyvy formuvannya standartiv dokazuvannya u suchasnomu kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrayiny’ [Perspectives of the Formation of Standards of Proof in the Modern Criminal Process of Ukraine] (2009) 3 Forum prava 302–307 (in Ukrainian).
16. Pavlyshyn A, Slyusarchuk Kh, ’Standarty dokazuvannya ta formuvannya znannya u kryminalnomu provadzhenni’ [Standards of Evidence and Knowledge Creation in the Criminal Proceedings] (2016) 62 Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriya yurydychna 199–209 (in Ukrainian).
17. Pohoretskyy M A, ’Novyy KPK Ukrayiny povynen gruntuvatysya yak na yevropeyskykh standartakh, tak i na natsionalnykh tradytsiyakh’ [The New CPC of Ukraine Should Be Based on Both European Standards and National Traditions] (2010) 23 Borotba z orhanizovanoyu zlochynnistyu i koruptsiyeyu (teoriya i praktyka) 241–250 (in Ukrainian).
18. Ratushna B P, ’Standart dokazuvannya yak kryteriy dostovirnosti rezultatu sudovoho piznannya’ [Standard of Proof as a Criterion for the Reliability of the Result of Judicial Knowledge] (2012) 6 Pravo Ukrayiny 282–291 (in Ukrainian).
19. Stepanenko V V, ’Standarty perekonannya (dosvid Spoluchenykh Shtativ Ameryky)’ [Standards of Persuasion (US Experience)] (2016) 3 Forum prava 245–249 (in Ukranian).
20. Trokhlyuk A, ’Ponyatye pryntsypa obespechenyya dokazannosty vyny v uholovnom protsesse Ukrayny’ [The Concept of Ensuring of Proof of Guilt in the Criminal Process of Ukraine] (2016) 4(2) Legea şi viaţa 72–75 (in Russian).
21. Kalinovskiy K B, ’Bremya dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom protsesse: vzaimosvyaz standarta dokazannosti s prezumptsiyami i pravovoye vzaimodeystviye uchastnikov pravootnosheniy’ [The Burden of Proof in the Criminal Process: the Interconnection of the Standard of Proof with Presumptions and the Legal Interaction of the Participants in Legal Relations] Pravovyye sostoyaniya i vzaimodeystviya: istoriko-teoreticheskiy, otraslevoy i mezhotraslevoy analiz: Materialy VII Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-teoreticheskoy konferentsii (g. Sankt-Peterburg, 1–2 dekabrya 2006 g.) / pod obshch. red. R. A. Romashova, N. S. Nizhnik. V 2 ch. Ch. 1 (SPb., Sankt-Peterburgskiy universitet MVD Rossii 2006) 245–249 (in Russian).
22. Luchinska M S, ’Poryadok ukhvalennya sudovoho rishennya «poza rozumnym sumnivom»’ [Procedure for the Adoption of a Court Decision «Beyond Reasonable Doubt»] Reformuvannya natsionalnoho ta mizhnarodnoho prava: perspektyvy ta priorytety: Materialy Mizhnarodnoyi naukovo-praktychnoyi konferentsiyi (Dnipro, 8–9 hrudnya 2017 r.) U2-kh ch. Ch. 2 (Kherson, Vydavnychyy dim «Helvetyka» 2017) 138–141 (in Ukrainian).
23. Reznik G M, ’Standarty dokazannosti i mezhotraslevaya preyuditsiya’ [Standards of Proof and Interdisciplinary Prejudice] Ugolovnaya yustitsiya: svyaz vremen: Izbrannyye materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii (Sankt-Peterburg, 6–8 oktyabrya 2010 g.) (Moskva, ZAO «Aktion-Media» 2012) 91–94 (in Russian).