Evidentiary Procedure Research Articles

Technical supervision in criminal proceedings

The principle of finding out the truth is one of the fundamental principles of the criminal process. Within it, the reactions of the individual who harm the values protected by criminal norms are analyzed, aiming to guarantee the rights of the parties and other participants, as well as the efficient exercise of the duties of the judicial bodies.
 Although the purpose of criminal proceedings is no longer effectively enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the notion is nevertheless found in Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the title "Fairness and reasonable term of criminal proceedings". It stipulates that criminal prosecution and trial must be conducted in compliance with procedural guarantees and the rights of parties and procedural subjects in such a way that facts constituting criminal offences are ascertained in a timely and complete manner, no innocent person is held criminally responsible and any individual who has committed a crime is punished according to law, within a reasonable time.
 According to Article 97 para. (1) Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence is those realities, events, circumstances that serve to establish the existence or non-existence of a crime, as well as to the identity of the person who committed it. Thus, evidence comprises three interconnected and interdependent elements: evidence, means of proof and evidentiary procedures. The literature states that by introducing this system, "a more effective control over the manner of taking evidence can be established. Moreover, the analysis of the evidence will be possible only in terms of form, so that it complies with the law, while the analysis of the evidentiary procedures will concern the technical operation by which that means of evidence was obtained."
 The use of technical supervision as an evidentiary procedure in criminal proceedings is a topical topic, given the technological leap in communication and information that has taken place in recent years. We note that in the title dedicated to evidence (Title IV) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure we find a new chapter (Chapter IV), which refers to special surveillance or investigation techniques. This legislation seeks to strike a balance between ensuring the State's right to use new evidentiary procedures and respecting the right to privacy and the secrecy of correspondence.
 Thus, Article 138 para. (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure expressly and exhaustively provides for special technical surveillance techniques, as follows: letter (a) interception of conversations and communications; lit.(b) access to an information system; lit.(c) video, audio or photographic surveillance; (d) tracking or tracing by technical means; lit.(e) obtaining data on a person's financial transactions. Interception is defined as the intervention of authorized bodies in any kind of conversations or in any other electronic means of communication involving the idea of confidentiality.
 The results of the technical surveillance activity are recorded in the report, which will thus become a genuine means of evidence, being concluded in accordance with the provisions of Article 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Also, Articles 139-146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for the cases that allow such restrictive measures against human rights and freedoms to be taken, the conditions to be met, the bodies authorized to carry out these activities, as well as the ways of verifying these means of evidence.
 Obtaining evidence by means of these special evidentiary procedures requires a carefully organized activity consisting in tracking the data subjects, the activities they carry out, the individuals with whom they come into contact, as well as the interception of any communication dip between them. This type of evidence was appreciated as a real modernization of the evidentiary system in criminal proceedings

Search, evidentiary procedure for discovering and removing documents and material means of evidence

The paper deals with the importance of the legislative framework governing domicile search and the procedure by which it can be ordered. Domicile search is decisive in solving the criminal case by obtaining evidence necessary to establish the facts or circumstances in which the crime was committed and to identify the perpetrator. A house search is a criminal procedure in which judicial authorities carry out certain searches of residential premises in order to obtain physical evidence of certain crimes. The searches require "legality" and participation in appropriate procedural safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse in order to respect the human rights enshrined in the Romanian Constitution and also in the European Convention on Human Rights, especially with respect for private and family life. I am trying to analyse to what extent the new legal provisions fall within the guarantees imposed by human rights law. To do this, I look at the search warrant procedure and the legal conditions that judicial authorities must follow during the home search procedure.
 Domiciliary search is regulated in Articles 157-164 of the NCPP, and in Art. 27 of the Romanian Constitution and art. Article 8 of the ECHR expressly provides that the conduct of this procedure presupposes respect for the inviolability of the person's domicile and private life.

The tactics of talking the statement of the protected witness

The article introduces the main forensic tactical rules applicable to the evidentiary procedure of listening to protected witnesses during the criminal trial, through an aggregate analysis of the forensic procedures with the relevant legal norms, as well as with references to national and international jurisprudential solutions, and finally brief conclusions are expressed and Ferenda law proposals to improve the legislative framework and forensic methods in the field.

Legitimization of the constitutional judicial process by evidence (the case of Italy and France)

Under the conditions of legitimization of the constitutional process, constitutional subjects seek to improve the method of decision-making and privilege a certain type of argumentation. Although there are many tools to achieve this, the purpose of this contribution is limited to the study of evidence as a tool of legitimation. On the one hand, legal evidence, as it is an irreplaceable means of achieving a certain truth, and on the other hand, it is legitimized, as it involves an evidentiary procedure that guarantees the right of each participant in the legal process to have his case heard by a judge. If the evidentiary regime, whose function is to demonstrate the truth of the facts, is sometimes a pole apart from that which has the function of obtaining community approval, these two functions contribute to the same goal of legitimizing the constitutional process. Evidential legitimation does not correspond to a natural process, but rather consists of a discourse that treats the evidence in certain ways, or rather in different ways, in order to increase the legitimacy of the constitutional judge's decisions. If it falls under the specific field of comparative constitutional jurisprudence, the contribution appeals to the context of the general theory of evidence and, in particular, to the recently conceptualized functions of evidence. It follows from this that in the process of depoliticization or jurisdictionalization of the review of constitutionality, constitutional subjects strive, on the one hand, to improve the way of decision-making, and on the other hand, to privilege a certain type of argumentation. Although there are many tools to achieve this, the purpose of this contribution is limited to the study of evidence as a tool of legitimation. More specifically, the process of legitimization by evidence can be conceived as a process initiated by legal entities in order to gain authority among different audiences. The main function of evidence is to verify the production of facts that are decisive for the resolution of the dispute and to which the law attributes legal consequences. This function of proof consists in determining the truth of statements that describe the occurrence of these defining facts. However, it is important to note that this contribution is not intended to position itself on the content of the truth in the judicial process.

Responsibility of Ad Hoc Judges in Deciding Cases of Gross Violations Human Rights Based on The Principles of Justice

The research aims to; Finding the substantive responsibility of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights based on the principle of distributive justice according to Aristotle. Find personal arrangements for the procedural responsibilities of ad hoc judges according to the provisions of Indonesian legislation. Evaluating administrative responsibilities through oversight mechanisms conducted on ad hoc human rights judges. Normative juridical methods are used in research. The results of the study that ad hoc judges decide cases of gross violations of human rights do not consider the legal elements of gross violations of human rights. The evidentiary procedure is weak because ad hoc judges are institutionally independent and personally not because the influence of the chief justice is still there. Bawasmari's internal oversight is inadequate as the judge's disciplinary examination is not transparent. This research aims to 1) Find the substantive responsibilities of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights (HAM) based on the principle of distributive justice according to Aristotle. 2) Find the regulation of procedural responsibility of ad hoc judges personally according to the provisions of legislation in Indonesia. 3) Evaluate the admi nistrative responsibility through the supervision mechanism carried out on ad hoc judges, more specifically judges in human rights courts. This research method uses a normative juridical approach or an approach that examines the law as a rule, also called doctrinal legal research, because this research is conducted or aimed at written regulations. The results showed that the responsibility of ad hoc judges in deciding cases of gross violations of human rights should use the elements of the law of gross violations of human rights (HAM) but the fact that it is ruled out means that the judge's decision is considered unfair because it does not comply with existing legal standards, as well as the responsibility of judges in applying the evidentiary system in the legal process is weak. It was also found that the procedures for resolving gross violations of human rights have been implemented, but currently judges are institutionally independent and personally not so, therefore their decisions are certainly not fully independent, because they are influenced by many factors such as the influence of the head of the court or other issues from outside the judge. The internal supervision mechanism by the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia is still considered half-hearted because the quality and integrity of supervision is inadequate, as seen in the process of disciplinary examination of judges that is not transparent.

Questions of the admissibility of the use of modern evidence in the claim proceedings «screenshot»

This article examines the question of the admissibility of the use of a screenshot as evidence in the claim proceedings during the consideration and resolution of a civil case in court. Using a doctrinal approach, the formed concepts of the essence of such a type of proof as a screenshot are analyzed. Having established that for many scientists, the fundamental definition of a screenshot is a picture taken from the screen of a digital device, a distinction is made between a snapshot and a screenshot. The controversial nature of attributing the screenshot to a separate type of evidence, written or material, is noted. Using the method of scientific knowledge of judicial practice, the article concludes that the courts have long been familiar with such evidence as a photograph and do not often use a screenshot as such, since there is no legal definition of a screenshot, as well as mechanisms for fixing it and establishing the source from which the screenshot was taken. Judicial practice, in turn, has an impact on law-making and practical law enforcement. In the end, it is concluded that there is a need for a legislative settlement of controversial issues regarding such evidence as a screenshot in order to improve the effectiveness of the evidentiary procedure and the accessibility of justice in general.

EVIDENTIARY ACTIONS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS: THEORETICAL-IMPLEMENTING ASPECT

It is practically impossible to imagine the collection of necessary evidence and the evidentiary procedure without the application of general evidentiary actions as well as special investigative actions in relation to legally prescribed criminal offenses for which the application of these specific actions can be determined. The Criminal Procedure Code prescribes general evidentiary and special investigative actions as well as restrictive legal conditions for their application. It is undisputed that the position of the prosecutor in the evidentiary procedure regarding the determination of the existence of a certain criminal offense and guilt depends on the volume and qualitative component of the evidence collected in the investigation, which means that the segment of the application of general and special investigative actions in relation to legality of collected evidence and respect for human rights and freedoms, is very important. The burden of proof is on the acting prosecutor, who has a leading and supervisory role in the investigation in relation to authorized officials in terms of the implementation of mentioned evidentiary actions and the collection of necessary evidence. It follows from the above stated that in each specific case, for the application of general evidentiary actions and special investigative actions, it is necessary to meet restrictive legal requirements. Also, this paper covers the implementation or enforcement aspect regarding the initiation and application of these evidentiary actions.

Gondolattöredékek az előkészítő ülésről a vád és a bizonyítás viszonylatában

The present study focuses on preliminary session, which was altered in its function by the resolutions of the new Law of Criminal Procedure (entering into force in 2018), that is Act XC of 2017 (henceforth LCP) with special regard to the relationship between accusation and evidentiary procedure with the help of a case. I also examine the rules of criminal procedure codified in Hungarian judicature, the function and influence of preliminary session, the main characteristics and the place of preliminary session among procedural forms of court procedures. The study examines whether preliminary session regulated by LCP meets the requirements and checks indictment eliminating unsubstantiated procedures. In case it fails to do so, what further regulations are needed to be added to present ones in order to meet requirements with special regard to codification policy embodied in criminal judicature, especially effectiveness, promptness, simplicity and coherence. I examine in details the possibility whether it could be the right and obligation of the court to examine not only the means of evidence deriving from legal elements and other informative elements contained in the presented indictment but also the legality of preliminary sessions and investigation procedures as a legal condition of initiating a court procedure. The study describes the regulation of LCP concerning evidentiary procedures in the preliminary session emphasizing the modifications by Act XLIII of 2020 concerning the interrogation of the accused. I examine its significance and point out whether anomalies in connection with the limits of evidentiary procedure are successfully eliminated in judicature.

Implementation of the proportionality test during the search process and the collection of evidence

As a means of collecting materials, the search and seizure of objects and documents is of undeniable importance in criminal evidence, providing valuable data that serve to establish the existence or non-existence of the crime, to identify the perpetrator, to establish guilt and other circumstances essential to the just settlement of the case. The present study, in the light of the proportionality test, reflects on the application of several evidentiary procedures, based on multiple criteria, in particular, the assessment of the reasonable doubt, the proportionality between the evidentiary procedure used and the degree of the incriminated deed; the relevance of the materials collected as a result of the evidentiary procedure and the excessive use of force, in carrying out the search.

Sterner Response toward Rape in line with Islamic Law: Special Reference to Pakistan

This paper tends to examine the nature of rape crime under Islamic law in order to take sterner action against this crime in line with Islamic law. As the Holy Quran does not directly deal with rape crime, for this reason, there is a wide range of disagreement among jurists regarding the issue of rape crime. Rape is not a single dimension issue, therefore, this paper is meant to shed light on issues related to rape such as whether or not rape is a separate crime? When does sexual intercourse amount to rape? What does Islam prescribe punishment for a person who is coerced to commit rape? Does Islam permit abortion for raped women? Why marital rape does not exist in Islam? Whether rapists may be awarded the punishment of lashes, Imprisonment or death as t‘azir or syasah? This paper finds out what Zina (fornication) is under Islamic law because in Islamic jurisprudence only coerced Zina is regarded as rape. Thus, this paper is classifying rape in the same category as Zina. By classifying rape as a subset of Zina can only sort out the juridical issues that are emanating from coerced Zina. However, Some modern scholars put rape in a category of Hirabbah crime in order to circumvent the strict evidentiary procedure of Zina(fornication) crime. This paper depicts that there is no need to put rape in the domain of Hirabah because Islamic law permits the ruler or legislation to award punishment of lashes or death as Tazir or Syasah without waiting for the four pious Muslim male eye witness and inflicting Hadd of Qadaf(slander) to the complainant. Finally, this paper is exploring the options that may be taken in order to nip this crime in the bud.

THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND

The thematic concept of the Paper consists of legal issues related to criminal proceedings in England, which are the so-called pure adversarial proceedings. These proceedings differ from the law of the continental European countries and are characterized by archaisms and continuity, original common law (judicial) character, and the absence of major codifications. In this context, the paper analyzes the meaning of common law and equity law, and procedural criteria for the categorization of criminal offenses. Regarding the issue of rules and procedures for establishment of the facts, the authors pay special attention to the consideration of determining the factual background of the dispute, the burden of proof and procedural rules on the presentation of evidence. Clearly emphasizing the different classifications of evidence that can be presented be- fore the court, the authors point out that English law treats all hearings in the same way, i.e. it also brings the testimonies of the defendant and the expert wit- ness under the witness examination regime. Starting from the fact that an im- portant feature of legal principles is that in English law there is an obligatory exclusion of illegally obtained confession of the defendant from the evidence, it is concluded that the exclusion rule is essentially a relatively exclusive rule with a large discretionary assessment of the judge. In conclusion, the authors assess that the entire evidentiary procedure, types of evidence, the manner of their collection, presentation and evaluation in English law, to a greater or lesser extent, differs from the continental criminal proceedings.

Are We There Yet? Preemptory Issues of Arbitrability and Jurisdiction in Contracts Tainted by Corruption Allegations

With a steady growth of International business transactions, corruption has intensified across all sectors of economic activity. Some of the effects of this tectonic shift has also been felt in Arbitration forums, cutting across all forms, even though the methodology of truce remains contentious. One of the primary investigations in this scholarship is to come out with answers to the burgeoning question of ‘how to deal with corruption’ in the field of Arbitration law. For years since the ICC Case of 1963, corruption allegations have thrown some confusing propositions before the arbitral tribunals across the globe, lending a parallel and divided jurisprudence on the matters where contracts tainted by corruption are argued. This has in turn caused a fetch shift transformation in how these allegations are investigated and what consequences they may cast on the resulting awards across forms of arbitration. The present article tries to paint a wholesome picture of the peremptory issues of ratione materie jurisdiction, arbitrability and to some extent, even admissibility in the light of corruption ridden contractual claims. Firstly, a comparison is drawn with arbitral forums dealing with investment treaty based issues and contractual matters involving private parties. Secondly, an inquiry is led into the arbitrability of contracts, where corruption allegations are raised. Thirdly, an examination is conducted on the modern arbitral confusion around the powers of the arbitral tribunals in terms of evidentiary procedure, investigative powers and jurisdictional authority. Finally, a discussion is conducted on the consequences that flow from the finding of corruption in contracts. While, these answers may not get a unanimous response in terms of their viability, they nonetheless initiates an expedition into the larger point of deflection, ‘Are We There Yet’.

The idea of promotional compromise in the termination of criminal persecution and exemption from the criminal responsibility of the minor personnel with the application of forcedive measurement measures

The article proposes an original approach explaining the obvious ideological nature of the existence in the Russian criminal process of an evidentiary compromise with a special procedure for stopping criminal prosecution and exempting a minor from criminal liability using coercive educational measures. The author rightly argues that in modern criminal proceedings there has been created a promising, at the same time, conflict-free criminal procedure form of resolving a criminal case on the merits. In particular, the legislator, with strict and strict observance of the principles of the criminal process, formed a special compromise and at the same time evidentiary procedure for the court to make a final decision on the criminal case in the form of termination of criminal prosecution and exemption from criminal liability of a minor with the use of compulsory educational measures.
 The work concludes on the unconditional effectiveness of this compromise order, as well as the need to further improve such alternative evidentiary proceedings in order to promptly resolve the criminal case and implement the purpose of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Expert Testimony in the Social Sciences: A Historical Overview of Contemporary Issues

In this brief reconsideration of the roles experts may play in legal proceedings - and concentrating on the role of social scientists in particular - it may, therefore, be useful to revisit some very familiar issues and to address some seemingly peripheral matters that are nevertheless quite central to the way we think about the involvement of experts in legal cases. For purposes of introducing some of these issues it may be helpful to focus on three interrelated concerns: the ascertaining of expert qualifications, the role of evidentiary procedure, and the extra-judicial use of social information.

Wyłączenie biegłego w postępowaniu arbitrażowym

DISQUALIFICATION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS IN AN ARBITRATION PROCEDUREThe legislator has not provided any specific regulations stipulating the legal basis of a disqualification of an expert witness in an arbitration procedure in the Polish Civil Procedure Code. As a result, it is clear whether it is possible and, if so, under what conditions it could take place. The proceedings before the arbitration court are entirely distinct from litigation, and, therefore, there are different rules concerning the evidentiary procedure, especially obtaining an expert opinion. During the arbitration procedure, as opposed to litigation, there are two modes of obtaining said evidence. As a general rule, there is a possibility of appointing an expert witness by the arbitration court; however, it is more common for the parties to appoint an arbitration expert witness. This justifies the different approach to the matter of disqualification of an expert witness — on the basis of the source of their appointment.Regarding the event of appointing an expert witness by the arbitration court, it is important to note that pursuant to the provision of Article 1184 § 2 sentence 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the arbitration court is not bound by the provisions regulating the litigation. Therefore, in the arbitration procedure on the grounds of the rule stipulated by the provision of Article 13 § 2 of the Civil Procedure Code there is no legal basis to apply the provisions of Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the disqualification of an expert witness. However, it appears that in the analyzed matter it is possible to resort to the IBA Guidelines on conflict of interests in international commercial arbitration. The expert witness appointed by the party shall be attributed the status of a witness with special knowledge expert witness. With this approach there is no need to resort to disqualification of an expert witness — the evidence in question shall be evaluated based on rules on witness testimony.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Reconstruction

Since the 19th century, reconstruction was introduced to and was known to Hungarian criminal procedures. Since the very beginning, it has been used to replicate the event, phenomenon, action or any of their parts under the same circumstances as they could have actually happened. The results of reconstruction are expected to verify or confute the testimony of the witness or the defendant. Furthermore, it is also a measure of credibility investigations, whereas the proceeding authority is checking whether the actions could take place as suspected upon the available data. However, it is questionable, whether reconstruction holds any disadvantages besides its benefits; moreover, we must examine in this paper the reasons behind the rare practice of this evidentiary procedure. It must be further viewed in the paper if there is a correlation between its infrequent application and its legal background.

Kriminalistička pravila o saslušanju okrivljenog od strane predstavnika policije ili javnog tužilaštva kroz faze izvođenja ove dokazne radnje

The interrogation of the defendant is a significant evidentiary action governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Art. 85 - Art. 90). The performance of the interrogation allows the defendant to provide their defence and make a statement on the criminal offense they are charged with, while the proceeding authority thereby receives a direct statement of facts concerning the criminal offense, from the person who, as a rule, has the best knowledge of how it had been perpetrated. In Serbian law, the term defendant is a general term used to denominate a suspect, an accused person, defendant and convicted person (Art. 2, para. 1, item 2 of the CPC), and the rules of the CPC pertaining to the interrogation of the defendant as an evidentiary action are applicable in a number of procedural situations, depending on the stage of criminal proceedings. In the context of our topic, we will deal with procedural situations where the rules governing the interrogation of the defendant as an evidentiary action are implemented during the questioning of a suspect. First and foremost, this is an opportunity for the suspect to be questioned by the police or the public prosecutor's office as early as during the preinvestigation proceedings in accordance with the rules governing the interrogation of the defendant. This is possible only in exceptional cases and under specific conditions: that the suspect agrees to give their testimony and that both their consent and statement are given in the presence of a defence counsel (Art. 289, para. 4 of the CPC). Second, the provisions governing the interrogation of the defendant will always be applied by the public prosecutor when questioning the suspect during the investigation stage (Art. 300, para. 1 of the CPC). Third, these provisions are applied by the public prosecutor in summary proceedings, where an investigation is not conducted, but only certain evidentiary actions (Art. 499, para. 2 of the CPC). Generally speaking, the defendant's interrogation process evolves through three stages, which is what determined the structure of this paper. The first stage implies the beginning of the interrogation and consists of three steps, namely, making contact with the defendant, followed by the acquisition of personal information from the defendant and, ultimately, presenting allegations to the defendant on the criminal offense they have been charged with, their rights and obligations. The second stage is related to the very course of providing a statement on the criminal offense which the defendant has been charged with and it consists of a stage in which the defendant gives an undisturbed statement and a stage of questioning the defendant. The recording of the testimonies and the completion of the interrogation represent the third stage of this evidentiary procedure. The aim of the paper is to present criminal rules regulating the interrogation of a suspect by the police or the public prosecutor's office, in situations when this interrogation is conducted as an evidentiary action in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ponowienie czynności dowodowej w polskim procesie karnym (aspekty teoretyczne i prakseologiczne)

Tekst zawiera analizę charakteru prawnego unormowania instytucji ponowienia czynności dowodowej. Prezentowane poglądy uznają instytucję ponowienia czynności dowodowej za kluczową czynność kontrolującą dowody niezbędną z punktu widzenia prawidłowości poczynionych ustaleń. Autor przyjmuje, że ograniczanie dopuszczalności ponowienia czynności do zgodności z formalnymi wymaganiami prawa procesowego jest niewystarczające. Jego zdaniem kwestię tę należy identyfikować proporcjonalnością. prawdziwością, przydatnością, i efektywnością poczynionych ustaleń będących rezultatem jej przeprowadzenia tak z punktu widzenia realizacji rzeczywistych jak i założonych celów procesowych. W konkluzji autor stwierdza, że przeprowadzanie czynności dowodowych powinno uwzględniać postulat ich zasadności, kompletności, precyzji i efektywności dla dowodowej podstawy rozstrzygnięcia. Cała trudność w zakresie ponowienia czynności dowodowej polega na wyważeniu dóbr w postaci limitacji dolegliwości względem uczestników procesu karnego, szybkości przebiegu postępowania karnego a realizacją zasady prawdy materialnej, zasady legalizmu ścigania, zasady swobodnej oceny dowodów oraz postulatu trafnej reakcji karnej.

Argumentation – Evidentiary Procedure in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract The continuous increase in criminal activities in all countries, namely the offences which undermine the interests of contemporary societies, call for the need to fight them in a more successful manner. In this way, the country through its mechanisms detects the criminal offences, the criminal liability and imposes the meritorious sanction to the perpetrators of such criminal offences, in full compliance with the danger caused by them. However, the court and other parties in the proceedings (Prosecution, Lawyer, Victim’s Advocate) in any case before the sanction is imposed, are involved in a complicated evidentiary proceedings related to the grounded suspicion that such offence was a criminal offence, the special mitigating and aggravating circumstances, that the person involved was conscious, that he committed the offence intentionally or negligently, his mental state, etc. All these have to be supported by facts through conclusive pieces of evidence. In parallel with the overall development of science and technology, the evidentiary procedure has evolved and it provides a greater possibility to argue our facts. This paper shall make efforts to highlight some of the most important issues related to the evidentiary procedure, such as: What is the evidence? What evidence should be provided in a certain criminal case? What is the importance of the evidence in a criminal matter? What should be the credibility and the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence? The research done in this paper shall apply the analytical method and the paper shall also include the conclusions that were reached as well as the recommendations.

ДОКАЗИ І ДОКАЗУВАННЯ В ЦИВІЛЬНОМУ ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНОМУ ПРАВІ УКРАЇНИ: ВІДПОВІДНІСТЬ МІЖНАРОДНИМ СТАНДАРТАМ

The article is devoted to the consideration of the legal nature of the institution of proof in civil proceedings and the compliance of national norms with international standards. The legislative definition of the concept of evidence, enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, is analyzed and some features of evidence in foreign countries are considered. The authors note that in order to conduct an effective comparative analysis of the evidentiary procedure in Ukraine and abroad, it is advisable to study the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as one of the main institutions whose jurisdiction extends to all member states of the Council of Europe and improve national legislation and bring it into line with international standards. It should be noted here that in all legal families the institution of proof is the cornerstone of justice. The development of legal systems was due to the systematic reform of procedural legislation, the creation of new models aimed at meeting the requirements of the time. The European Court of Human Rights,