The standard of «beyond reasonable doubt» proof concept and its place in the proof standard system

Keywords: standard of proof, the standard of proof , the reasonableness of doubt, purpose of proof, inner conviction of the judge, interpretation of doubts in favour of the accused, probability and reliability

Abstract

The criminal justice system in Ukraine is aimed at effective rights and interests’ protection of individuals, society and the state. Thereby, there is a necessity to introduce new and to improve existing elements, while acting due presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle that sets proof standards to be taken into account by the participants in the criminal proceedings, and also determines the obligation to bear the burden of proof.The ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Europeanization of Ukrainian law, in general, have made significant contributions to the implementation of proof standards in national practice. As a result, international human rights standards, including the right for a fair trial, have become an integral part of the scientific disputes.The article explores the standard «beyond a reasonable doubt» proof concept in criminal procedural law. During the research, the author has studied national legislation, domestic and foreign doctrinal resources. As a result, the proof standard has been examined as a comprehensive notion, and the criterion for achieving a certain level of belief following the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been identified. The author commends the reader's attention to the correlation between the proof standard "beyond reasonable doubt" and other standards, the inner conviction of a judge or juro and the purpose of proof in criminal litigation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson Т., Schum D., Twining W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 246 p.

Bezsonjuk A. M. (2014). Dovedenist poza rozumnym sumnivom ta dostovirnist jak standarty dokazuvannja u kryminaljnomu procesi Ukrajiny. Sudova apeljacija, 3(36), 23-28 [in Ukrainian].

Case of Fazliyski v. Bulgaria: Judgment of European Court of Human Rights from 16 April 2013. Para 61. URL: URL:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-118573

Clermont K.M. Procedure's Magical Number Three: Psychological Bases for Standards of Decision. Cornell Law Faculty Publications.1987. P.1115 – 1155.

Del Mar K. The International Court of Justice and Standards of Proof. The ICJ and the Development of International law. The Lasting Impact of the Corfu Channel case. London: Routledge 2011. Р. 98-123.

Engel C. Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction: a Behavioral Perspective on a Conflict between American and continental European Law . Vermont Law Review. Vol. 33. P. 435-467.

Ghmyrko V.P. (2002) Kryminaljno – procesualjni dokazy: ponjattja, struktura, kharakterystyky, klasyfikacija. Konspekt problemnoji lekciji. Dnipropetrovsjk: Akademija mytnoji sluzhby Ukrajiny, 63 p [in Ukrainian].

Konstytucija Ukrajiny: Zakon Ukrajiny vid 28 chervnja 1996 r. Baza danykh «Zakonodavstvo Ukrajiny»/VR Ukrajiny. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80.

Kret G.R. (2019). Implementacija standartu dokazuvannja «poza rozumnym sumnivom» u kryminaljne procesualjne zakonodavstvo Ukrajiny i praktyku nacionaljnykh sudiv. Pravo i suspiljstvo, 2, 215-220 [in Ukrainian].

Kryminaljnyj procesualjnyj kodeks Ukrajiny: Zakon Ukrajiny vid 13 kvitnja 2012 r. # 4651-VI. Baza danykh «Zakonodavstvo Ukrajiny»/VR Ukrajiny. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17.

Kryminaljnyj proces: pidruchnyk (2013)/Y.M. Ghroshevyj ta in.; za zagh.red. V.Ja. Tacija, V.P. Pshonky. Кh.; Pravo, 540 p.

Kryminaljnyj procesualjnyj kodeks Ukrajiny. Naukovo-praktychnyj komentar. Za zagh. red. profesoriv V.Gh. Ghoncharenka, V.T. Nora, M.Je. Shumyla (2012). K.: Justinian, 1124 p. [in Ukrainian].

Kukhta A.A.(2009) Dokazuvanye ystynu v ugholovnom processe: monoghrafyja. Nyzheghorodskaja akademyja MVD Rossyy. Novghorod, 520 p. [in Russian].

Mackic, J. Proving discriminatory violence at the European Court of Human Rights. Leiden University. 2017. 273 р.

Nor V.T. (2010) Istyna u kryminaljnomu sudochynstvi: ideja, doghma prava, realizacija. Chasopys Nacionaljnogho universytetu «Ostrozjka akademija». Serija «Pravo», 2, 1-14. [in Ukrainian].

Nor V.T. (2015) Ponjattja «poza rozumnym sumnivom» u dokazuvanni vynuvatosti obvynuvachenogho za novym KPK Ukrajiny / uporjadnyky V.V. Lucyk, A.A. Pavlyshyn. Kh.: Pravo. [in Ukrainian].

Nor. V. Javorsjkyj B. (2010) Tlumachennja sumniviv na korystj pidsudnogho pid chas postanovlennja vyroku. Visnyk ljvivsjkogho universytetu. Serija jurydychna, Vyp. 51. URL: http://www.pravoznavec.com.ua/period/article/18233/%C2. [in Ukrainian].

Petrukhyn Y.L.(2003) Ystyna, dostovernostj y verojatnostj v sude // Jurydycheskyj myr, 8, 17 – 25. [in Russian].

Ratushna B.P. (2012). Standart dokazuvannja jak kryterij dostovirnosti sudovogho piznannja. Pravo Ukrajiny, 282-289. [in Ukrainian].

Sljusarchuk Kh.R. (2017). Standarty dokazuvannja u kryminaljnomu provadzhenni: dys… kand. jur. nauk: 12.00.09 / Ljvivsjkyj nacionaljnyj universytet imeni Ivana Franka. Ljviv, 258 p. [in Ukrainian].

Shumylo M.E.(2014). Imovirnist i viroghidnist znannja u kryminaljnomu provadzhenni jak peredumova potreby objektyvizaciji rezuljtativ dokazuvannja. Pravo Ukrajiny, 10, 44-52. [in Ukrainian].

Sprava «Fedorchenko ta Lozenko proty Ukrajiny»: rishennja Jevropejsjkogho sudu z prav ljudyny vid 20.09.2012. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_933#Text .

Stepanenko A.S. (2017) Standart dokazuvannja «poza rozumnym sumnivom» v kryminaljnomu provadzhenni: dys… kand. jur. nauk: 12.00.09 / Nacionaljnyj universytet «Odesjka jurydychna akademija», Odesa, 234 p. [in Ukrainian].


Abstract views: 263
PDF Downloads: 672
Published
2021-04-29
How to Cite
Shapoval, A. (2021). The standard of «beyond reasonable doubt» proof concept and its place in the proof standard system. Public Administration Aspects, 9(2), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.15421/152113
Section
Article