Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the application of standards of proof in criminal proceedings. The criminal procedural legislation for determination of standards of proof is analyzed. The international and national judicial practice of application of standards of proof is investigated. Peculiarities of application of standards of proof at different stages of criminal proceedings are revealed. Differences in the application of standards of proof in making different procedural decisions have been established. The standard of reasonable suspicion is investigated. It is determined that the establishment of the standard “reasonable suspicion” depends on: 1) the stage of pre-trial investigation; 2) the degree of restriction of individual rights during decision-making. The article concludes that the lowest level of suspicion is sufficient for the commencement of criminal proceedings - suspicion of the fact of committing a criminal offense. Such suspicion of the fact of committing a criminal offense corresponds to the establishment of the object and the objective side of the criminal offense. It was found that during the detention of a person for committing a criminal offense, in addition to the suspicion of committing a criminal offense, the standard of “suspicion of sufficient involvement of the detainee” must be achieved. A certain level of suspicion of sufficient involvement of the detainee in the commission of a criminal offense is necessary to justify his detention. It was found that the notification of a person's suspicion of committing a criminal offense (without the application of a precautionary measure against him) presupposes the achievement of the standard of proof - “sufficient grounds (evidence)”. Which is lower than the standard of «reasonable suspicion”, the achievement of which is necessary in case of restriction of the rights of the person in connection with the application of security measures, etc. It is established that the standard “reasonable suspicion” is not stable and is assessed depending on the course of criminal proceedings. Over time, the standard of proof of “reasonable suspicion” increases and should be supported by proof of new circumstances and risks.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Ukrainian polyceistics: theory, legislation, practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.