ДОКТРИНА СТАНДАРТУ ДОКАЗУВАННЯ У СУДОЧИНСТВІ: ПОРІВНЯЛЬНИЙ АСПЕКТ

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the doctrine of the standard of proof in judicial proceedings, as well as to the comparison of already existing standards of proof. The study of the importance of standards of proof for economic and criminal justice in particular. The purpose is to analyze the doctrines of the standards of proof in court proceedings, to establish the legal nature of the categories «probability», «beyond a reasonable doubt», as well as partially «relevance», «admissibility», «reliability», «reasonable suspicion», as well as to carry out a comparative analysis of the standards of proof in the judiciary. On the basis of the conducted research, an analysis of many scientific works of scientists was carried out and it was established that there is no unambiguous definition to understand the concept of «standard of proof». Also, the understanding of the very standards of proof by both legislators and scientists is causing discussion. It has been established that in criminal proceedings it is appropriate to apply the standard of proof «beyond a reasonable doubt», as well as the standards of «reasonable suspicion» and «sufficient basis». The innovation of economic litigation, namely the standard of proof «probability of evidence», was also investigated. This standard of proof is ambiguously perceived by both academics and practitioners, and it was introduced not as another one, but instead of the standard «sufficiency of evidence», which used to be in commercial proceedings and still remains in civil proceedings. The author also pointed out the lack of a legislator in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the definition of the category «reliability» as a component of «belonging», while in the Code of Criminal Procedure «reliability is separated into a separate article.